Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

STORNOWAY HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords]

Considered; to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

EDINBURGH MERCHANT COMPANY WIDOWS' FUND (AMENDMENT) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords]

Considered; to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — MAINTENANCE ORDERS (AMERICAN AND CANADIAN FATHERS)

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has been made in his negotiations with the United States and Canadian Governments regarding the payment of allowances to mothers of illegitimate children by their nationals.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Mayhew): With regard to the United States, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) on 12th November. With regard to Canada, it was explained by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for Dominion Affairs, in the Debate on the Adjournment on 19th

December, 1945, that very considerable difficulty is seen in the way of extending to affiliation orders the procedure provided in the Maintenance Orders (Facilities for Enforcement) Act, 1920, and corresponding legislation in Commonwealth countries. In view of these difficulties, I understand that it has not been possible so far to make progress in the matter.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Is the Under-Secretary aware that his statement gets us absolutely nowhere, and that at least a year ago one of the Ministers from the Foreign Office said that satisfactory progress was being made? Is he further aware that in the meantime a great number of these women have suffered great hardship, and cannot we at least come to some satisfactory arrangement with Canada in the matter?

Mr. Mayhew: I am aware of the difficulty and of the gravity of the problem. There is no lack of will on our part to solve it, but the difficulty is in finding the means.

Mr. Chetwynd: In cases where the American flatly refuses to honour his responsibilities, are there any charitable organisations which would be willing to help?

Mr. Mayhew: Yes, Sir, there are voluntary welfare organisations, and we are doing our utmost to get satisfactory arrangements with them, and to some extent we have been successful.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Will the Under-Secretary bear particularly in mind that many of these children are now three or four years of age and are becoming a heavy expense to their mothers?

Mr. Mayhew: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Can my hon. Friend say how many women are placed in this unfortunate position?

Mr. Mayhew: I think that the figure is available. I believe it is in the neighbourhood of 1,500.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

Factories (Demolition)

Mr. William Shepherd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many Germans are at present employed in factories which are scheduled for demolition.

Mr. Mayhew: Some 5,000 Germans are employed in war plants scheduled for demolition in the British zone. In addition, 14,000 are employed in factories where only part of the plant is to be demolished.

Mr. Shepherd: Can we have an assurance that these factories will not be demolished until alternative employment has been found for these men?

Mr. Mayhew: So far as war plant is concerned, our undertaking is to demolish the factories, but as the hon. Member knows, the demolition of non-war buildings has been suspended.

N.A.A.F.I. Supplies (Trafficking)

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will exhibit in the tea room a copy of the notice posted in the British zone of Germany warning members of the Control Commission not to traffic in N.A.A.F.I. supplies; and if he will indicate the extent and amount of that trafficking to date.

Mr. Mayhew: With regard to the first part of the Question, I am sending the hon. Member a copy of this notice. In reply to the second part, I need hardly say that no statistics are available. The evidence suggests, however, that our counter-measures are having a considerable effect.

Sir W. Smithers: Does not the Under-Secretary realise that the mere fact of having to issue this notice proves that many members of the Commission are not fit for their job, and that the Commission have lost the respect of the Germans? Will he take steps to clean up this Augean stable?

Mr. Mayhew: If the hon. Member has any concrete details to give me, I will look into them; otherwise, he should not make these general assertions.

Mr. Shepherd: Is the Under-Secretary aware that not many Members on this side of the House will share this wholesale condemnation.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED NATIONS

Member States (Reciprocity)

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will take immediate steps at the meetings of U.N.O. to insist on full reciprocity of travel, freedom of movement, Press, and conscience within the territories of the member States.

Mr. Mayhew: His Majesty's Government are already actively supporting measures to achieve these ends through United Nations' machinery.

Sir W. Smithers: Will the hon Gentleman seize every opportunity of enforcing reciprocity, and of exposing the danger from Communist infiltration?

Atomic Energy Commission (U.S.S.R.)

Mr. Eric Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Atomic Energy Commission of the United Nations has received any recent communication from the Soviet Government regarding the progress they are making with the manufacture of atom bombs.

Mr. Mayhew: Not as far as I am aware.

Mr. Fletcher: In view of the recent announcement in the Press that a test atom bomb was exploded in Russia last June, and that such bombs are now in production there, will my hon. Friend make a further effort to secure the international control of atomic energy?

Mr. Mayhew: I can make no comment on the truth of that report, but it certainly underlines the vital necessity of getting international co-operation on the question.

Commander Noble: Will the hon. Gentleman make a general statement, in the near future, on the working of this Commission, as so little progress seems to have been made during the last two years towards real agreement?

Mr. Mayhew: If a question is put down we will answer it.

Major Legge-Bourke: Will the hon. Gentleman also do something to stop the other form of radio activity in the U.S.S.R.?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH MILITARY ATTACHE, MOSCOW

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the duties of the Military Attaché at Moscow; and what expenditure is involved in maintaining this office.

Mr. Mayhew: The duties of the Military Attaché at Moscow are to act as the senior military representative of His Majesty's Government in the Soviet Union and as advisor on military matters to His Majesty's Ambassador. I am informed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War that the expenditure involved in maintaining the office of the Military Attaché is £11,500 per annum.

Mr. Hughes: In view of the unfortunate incident which occurred in Moscow in connection with this officer, will my hon. Friend consider withdrawing him—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and sending to Moscow somebody who would be more likely to bring about understanding with the Soviet Union?

Mr. Mayhew: No, Sir. I entirely reject the suggestion that our Military Attaché was in any way at fault in the incident.

Oral Answers to Questions — BOMBING PLANS, BAKU (WAR PERIOD)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will publish the communication received by the Foreign Office from the French Government in March, 1940, on the proposed bombing of Baku, and the answer the British Government returned.

Mr. Mayhew: No, Sir. No useful purpose would be served by publishing at this date correspondence relating to abortive plans aimed at reducing German supplies of oil and other products.

Mr. Hughes: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the Swedish White Book full details have been given about this proposed bombing? Is there any reason why the British people should not have equal access to this information?

Mr. Mayhew: I do not think that any good would be done at this stage in going into all that.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROUMANIA (DR. MANIU, TRIAL)

Major Tufton Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the conduct of the trial of Dr. Maniu in Roumania, and say what is His Majesty's Government's view of the processes of this trial in the light of Article 3 of the Peace Treaty recently concluded with Roumania.

Mr. Mayhew: The conduct of the trial of Dr. Maniu and his associates followed the usual lines of Eastern European political trials, and left much to be desired by western standards. However, the full reports of the trials have not yet been received and meanwhile I am considering whether the processes of the trial itself are a matter covered by Article 3 of the Peace Treaty with Roumania.

Major Beamish: When will the hon. Gentleman be in a position to give the House more information regarding this so-called trial, which marks the culmination of the stamping out of the legal opposition in Roumania?

Mr. Mayhew: We should be in a position to answer further questions very shortly.

Mr. Piratin: Would the hon. Gentleman say that the trial, held recently, of Mr. Caunt, under Mr. Justice Birkett, was typical of western democratic standards?

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Is it not a fact that all trials of political prisoners by military tribunals are contrary to Article 3 of the Peace Treaty?

Mr. Mayhew: I could not say without notice.

Mr. Ronald Chamberlain: In view of Dr. Maniu's advanced age, and state of health, will my hon. Friend consider making representations for clemency, as was done in the case of Archbishop Stepinac?

Oral Answers to Questions — SINGAPORE (WAR PRISONERS)

Mr. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is yet in a position to amplify his reply to the hon.


Member for Hornsey of the nth June, 1947, regarding the representations made to him by the War Prisoners (Singapore) Association.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Creech Jones): Yes, Sir. The Governor of Singapore has assured me that he is aware of the problems facing members of this Association, and is endeavouring to assist them in all possible ways provided that other members of the public are not thereby made to suffer by comparison. I have caused the Association to be informed in this sense.

Mr. Gammons: Could the Minister give the House an idea of what has happened with regard to this case? Will he cause the decisions to be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

Mr. Creech Jones: Reports have been made on such questions as the shortage of housing, clothing, transport, and so on, and the Governor has given what assistance he possibly can to members of the Association.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALAYA

War Damage Claims

Mr. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware of the hardship being caused to many claimants from Malaya for compensation for war damage; and when he expects to be able to make a statement.

Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, Sir, I am aware of the hardships referred to. The Malayan War Damage Claims Commissioner has completed his preliminary investigation, and has visited this country for discussion with Departments concerned. I will make a statement when the results of his investigations have been fully considered both by the Malayan Governments and by His Majesty's Government.

Mr. Gammans: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this has been going on for two and a half years, and that many of these people are completely destitute? Does he not think it time that a decision was reached, and they were given some compensation?

Mr. Creech Jones: I am fully aware that it has been going on for some time,

but the problem is a very complicated one, because it involves damages going back for five or six years. Excellent progress, however, is now being made.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that claimants are debarred from taking any legal action by the legal moratorium? Will he raise it to enable them to take such action in defence of their claims?

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE?

Illegal Immigration

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement setting out the facts known to His Majesty's Government, concerning the financing and organisation of illegal immigration into Palestine.

Mr. Creech Jones: His Majesty's Government are in possession of a great deal of information about this traffic, but I regret that I do not consider that it would be opportune to make a detailed statement at the present moment, when the main problem of Palestine is under close discussion by the United Nations.

Mr. Shepherd: Is it not desirable, in view of the allegations which have been made against us, that we should give to the world all the facts now in our possession about this traffic?

Mr. Janner: Can my right hon. Friend give to the House the total number of Arabs residing illegally in Palestine, and can he say whether reductions are made from the monthly quota for Arab immigration on that account?

Mr. Creech Jones: That does not arise on this Question.

Mr. Stokes: rose—

Mr. Speaker: It is quite obvious that we could go all over the place if we went on with this Question.

Mr. Stokes: On a point of Order. As I have been unable to pursue this matter, Sir, I beg to give notice that I shall raise it on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Janner: On a point of Order. With respect, Sir, the main Question referred to illegal immigration into Palestine, and I was referring to illegal immigration over


the borders of Transjordan, Egypt, and so on, by Arabs.

Mr. Stokes: Further to that point of Order. As my supplementary question would have dealt with where the money comes from, and representations to the United States, would it be in Order to ask it now, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: No. I should have opened up a wide Debate if I had let the Question go on.

British Personnel (Withdrawal)

Mr. Lipson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if, in view of the further murders of British soldiers and civilians in Palestine, he will arrange for the evacuation of British personnel from Palestine to be completed not later than 1st May instead of 1st August, as had been announced.

Mr. Creech Jones: His Majesty's Government deeply deplore the continuing toll of British lives in Palestine, but they consider that 1st August is the earliest date by which the withdrawal of all British troops in Palestine could be completed, having regard particularly, to their number, the large quantities of equipment involved and the problem of transport.

Mr. Lipson: Is the Secretary of State aware of the concern felt by relatives of these men in this country at the long time that it is proposed to take for evacuation, and can he give an assurance that all possible speed will be shown in bringing about the evacuation, and, in particular, that there is no intention to go slow with evacuation until April, in order to make possible the export of the citrus crop from Palestine?

Mr. Creech Jones: All steps will be taken to secure as speedy a withdrawal as possible, but it is a very complicated operation, and problems of accommodation and transport must be considered if the thing is to be carried through efficiently and at all effectively.

Mr. Stokes: Will my right hon. Friend make clear to our American friends that unless they stop subsidising the Zionist movement, the Western mammies will soon have to send their sons to Palestine to impose an unwelcome policy?

Dr. Segal: Could my right hon. Friend give an undertaking to make at least an

early withdrawal of British Forces into the Gaza area where there is ample accommodation for all the troops at present in Palestine? Can he give a further undertaking that in the evacuation not only the ports of Haifa and Jaffa will be used, but that the widest possible use will be made of road and rail facilities to the Suez Canal zone?

Mr. Creech Jones: The withdrawal from Palestine cannot be discussed by question and answer on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Pickthorn: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether his original answer was meant to imply that all equipment will be got out by 1st August?

Mr. Creech Jones: We hope that as much equipment as possible will be withdrawn by that date.

Mr. Thurtle: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the withdrawal has already started?

Mr. Creech Jones: All I can say is that the matter is receiving our most active consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL EMPIRE

Co-operation Adviser

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the main function of the Co-operation Adviser now appointed at a salary of £1,350, appearing in the 1947–48 Estimates.

Mr. Creech Jones: The Adviser is concerned with the development of cooperative practice in the Colonies. He not only advises me on a variety of matters designed to assist the growth of the cooperative movement, but also advises Colonial Governments on the many problems and difficulties arising overseas. He is also most useful in organising recruitment and training, and acting as a link with the co-operative bodies in this country.

Mr. Cooper: Could my right hon. Friend tell us what his policy is in connection with the formation of consumer co-operatives, particularly in Nigeria, as I believe there has been a certain amount of official obstruction? Could my right hon. Friend's Co-operative Adviser look into the matter, with a view to getting it clarified?

Mr. Creech Jones: There has been no recent official obstruction, but in a circular I issued some months ago it was made clear that within the range of co-operative practice consumers' co-operatives are included.

Brigadier Rayner: In view of the national emergency, is it not time that many of these new and fancy appointments were abolished?

Mr. Creech Jones: Anyone with a knowledge of the problems of agricultural development in the Colonies will appreciate how very valuable is this assistance.

Mr. Pickthorn: Can we be told what is the length and time of the appointment, to what date, for how many years?

Mr. Creech Jones: There is no time limit for these appointments. They go on to the establishment of the Colonial Office as advisers to the Secretary of State.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: Is it not a fact that a large part of his work is to advise the producers' co-operatives, which form an important part of the production effort of the Colonies?

Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, Sir. In the Colonies the producers' side of the cooperative practice is most important. In view of the big drive forward in developing agriculture, this work is of great significance at the present moment.

Petrol Consumption (Economies)

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies in which colonies dependencies and mandated territories the basic petrol ration has been abolished.

Mr. Creech Jones: Colonial Governments have been informed of the steps taken in the United Kingdom to reduce petrol consumption with a view to saving dollars, and have been asked to take similar measures, as far as possible, with the object of reducing local consumption by 10 per cent. So far as I am aware, all Governments concerned are taking steps to this end, and some are actually making greater savings.

Sir T. Moore: I gather, from the right hon. Gentleman's reply, that there is to be a reduction of 10 per cent. How does that compare with the total abolition of

the basic petrol ration here? Why should there be this discrimination against the people of Britain?

Mr. Creech Jones: It is not a matter of discrimination against the people of Britain; it is a question of trying to effect economies in the use of petrol in the Colonies.

Sir T. Moore: As we have been given so little information, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Carnauba and Curicuri Wax

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether consideration has been given to the possibility of growing carnauba and curicuri wax within the Colonial Empire; and what action is contemplated.

Mr. Creech Jones: I believe that the carnauba palm has been grown in Tanganyika, British Guiana and Malaya but curicuri wax is nowhere known in the Colonial Empire. My Department is in touch with a Tanganyika planter who contemplates marketing carnauba wax, but there are at present no other plans for extending cultivation of these palms, which the hon. Member will realise do not start to produce wax until many years after planting.

Colonial Service (Pensions)

Mr. Harry Wallace: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the number of officers who have retired from the Colonial Service to the United Kingdom since September, 1939, and who have received no increase of pension on account of the rise in the cost of living.

Mr. Creech Jones: As my hon. Friend will be aware, most Colonial Governments follow Section I of the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1944. I have invited them to adopt the amendments made by the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1947, and a number of Colonial Governments have now informed me that they have done so. I am at present in a position to provide figures only in respect of pensioners of Governments whose schemes are based on the Act of this country, but those figures cover the large majority of Colonial pensioners. One thousand eight hundred and seventy officers have retired from the Colonial Service to the United Kingdom


since September, 1939, and of these 1,648 have not been awarded pensions increases because their pensions and other income are above the limits fixed by the 1944 Act. If all Colonial Governments concerned adopted the amendments made by the 1947 Act, 1,066 of these pensioners would be below the income limits governing the award of increase and would, therefore, have their cases reviewed.

Mr. Wallace: Can the Minister say whether he proposes to review the position of those officers who have received no increase of pension, in view of the reduced buying power of money?

Mr. Creech Jones: We have made representations to all the Colonial Governments asking that the most recent Act shall apply.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: Can the Minister say whether any special steps have been taken to find employment for ex-Colonial officers when they return to this country?

Mr. Creech Jones: Most of them are pensioners who go into retirement, but we try, in some cases, to absorb men suitable for work for which we can get no other applicants.

Colonial Development Corporation (Staffing)

Sir Ian Fraser: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if in staffing the overseas corporations he will consider the employment of suitable administrative and engineering officers who have had experience in India and Burma and who, owing to recent changes of policy, have been dismissed or have reduced prospects in those countries.

Mr. Creech Jones: The Bill proposes that the Colonial Development Corporation should be responsible for the engagement of its own staff. I understand that the Chairman-Designate has already been in negotiation regarding the recruitment of officers from India and Burma, and I have no doubt that the Corporation will make every use of this possible source of supply.

Sir I. Fraser: Will the right hon. Gentleman watch this position, taking the view that His Majesty's Government have some responsibility for old servants, or even young servants, whose careers are affected by their policy?

Mr. Creech Jones: That is very much in our minds, and we have already absorbed some of these men.

Stowaways

Brigadier Rayner: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many stowaways from the Colonies have arrived in this country during the past twelve months; how much has been spent on their behalf by the Welfare Section of his Department; and how much subsequently recovered from the recipients.

Mr. Creech Jones: I am unable to give the information required on the first part of the Question which should be addressed to my right hon. colleague the Home Secretary. Financial assistance to destitute stowaways is provided under Assistance Board machinery which does not differentiate between stowaways and other destitute Colonials. Such assistance is not recoverable but every effort is made to bring these people into employment.

Brigadier Rayner: Would the right hon. Gentleman say why it is necessary to spend so much public money on individuals who are unwilling to work hard enough in the Colonies to earn their own living?

Oral Answers to Questions — AFRICAN COLONIES

Groundnut Stocks, Nigeria

Mr. Walter Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, what the stocks of groundnuts in the Kano area were during the period 1st November, 1946, to 1st November, 1947; what were the total shipments during the period 1st November, 1946, to 1st November, 1947; and what proportion of the remaining stock is new crop or old crop.

Mr. Creech Jones: The unshipped stocks of groundnuts in the Kano area were 10,000 tons on the 1st November, 1946; they rose to a peak figure of 208,000 tons in February, and declined to 98,000 tons by the 1st November this year. Total shipments from Nigeria during that period amounted to 225,000 tons. Stocks at the 1st November this year were entirely from the 1946–47 crop.

Mr. Fletcher: Does not the Minister think that, to use his own phrase, anyone familiar with agricultural appointments in the Colonies would realise that


this is a gross failure on the part of the Government to move an old crop, and will he take steps to see that East African schemes do not get such priority in railway matters as to stop these groundnuts from coming here quickly?

Mr. Creech Jones: There is no question of East Africa getting priority. All steps have been taken to get the necessary locomotives and additional railway equipment, and I hope that, before long, these demands will be met.

Uganda Cottonseed Cake (Exports)

Mr. W. Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what attempts have been made to organise the export of cottonseed cake from Uganda.

Mr. Creech Jones: Disposal of all Uganda cottonseed and its products is under Government control. All the cake produced by local crushing is exported to Kenya as cattle food.

Murders, Nigeria (Secret Societies)

Dr. Segal: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he will give a statistical classification, according to motives, of the 157 cases of murders committed by secret Leopard Societies in Nigeria, which have been brought to light by recent investigations.

Mr. Creech Jones: I have asked the Nigerian Government to supply such information as is available on this point and will write to my hon. Friend as soon as it has been received.

Dr. Segal: Does the right hon. Gentleman really consider that the large number of death sentences passed in these cases has been fully justified, and cannot this very tragic sociological problem be dealt with by other than punitive measures?

Mr. Creech Jones: I have brought certain aspects of this matter to the notice of the Nigerian Government, and I would ask the hon. Gentleman to wait until I receive a reply.

University College, Ibadan

Dr. Segal: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress is being made towards the establishment of the new University of West Africa at

Ibadan; and when it is expected that the first of its faculties will be open for the reception of students.

Mr. Creech Jones: As I wish to give a full answer to this Question I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

A Principal of the university college at Ibadan has been appointed and has already assumed duty in Nigeria. A site has been selected and surveyed and an architect will be appointed before the end of this month to plan the permanent college buildings. Preliminary work on the site is already in hand and accommodation for teaching staff is being erected. The first professorial staff will, it is hoped, be appointed early in 1948. The staff and student body of the existing higher college at Yaba will form the nucleus of the new college and it is hoped that the transfer from Yaba to temporary accommodation at Ibadan will take place in January next and thus enable the college to open there then. The provision at Ibadan of courses leading to full university degrees will depend mainly on the recruitment of professorial staff and the Principal cannot therefore estimate yet when it will be possible to admit students for such work.

Sierra Leone (Land Ordinance)

Mr. Skinnard: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the reasons for the opposition of the Sierra Leone Protectorate Assembly to the Sierra Leone Protectorate (Acquisition of Lands) Ordinance; and why it is considered necessary for the Sierra Leone Government to hold land in the Protectorate on a freehold instead of leasehold basis.

Mr. Creech Jones: I am asking the Governor for a report on the matter, and will communicate with my hon. Friend on receipt of his reply.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN RHODESIA (LABOUR RECRUITMENT)

Skinnard: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent the Northern Rhodesian Government is considering plans for the direction of labour; and what kind of scheme is proposed.

Mr. Creech Jones: Some unofficial members of the Northern Rhodesia Legislature have suggested in debate that direction of labour should be adopted as a means of obtaining the labour required for essential food production; but the policy of that Government since the end of the war, has been and remains one of meeting the situation by voluntary recruitment.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will the right hon. Gentleman direct that excellent example to the attention of the Minister of Labour of this country?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

Prize Money

Mr. Skinnard: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he has yet received in a common form returns from all Empire Prize Courts; and whether he can now give an estimate of the amount of prize money available, and when grants can be made.

The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. John Dug-dale): No, Sir. Complete returns have not yet been received and cannot be expected for some time in view of the complexity of the position in some Dominions. Until the returns have been received in a final form it is not possible to make a reliable estimate of the amount of prize money available. For the same reason I am unable to make any forecast of when the grants can be made. Approval has been given, however, to the inclusion of a Prize Bill among the Bills which it is hoped will be taken later in this Session.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: How much money has already arrived?

Mr. Dugdale: I cannot tell the hon. Member.

Commander Noble: In view of the large number of people interested in this decision, will the Parliamentary Secretary give an assurance that everything possible will be done to expedite it?

Mr. Dugdale: Certainly, but I have made it clear we are not the only people concerned. All the Dominions are concerned.

Major Bruce: Does my hon. Friend realise that this has been going on for two years and will he give some more definite information concerning the date by which the Bill will be introduced?

Mr. Dugdale: I certainly cannot. I have stated today that the Bill will be introduced, and that is something.

Barracks, Devonport (Rebuilding)

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty when rebuilding of the Royal Naval Barracks, Devonport, is likely to be completed.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Walter Edwards): It is hoped to begin an instalment of the reconstruction scheme early in 1948 but present circumstances make it impossible to forecast when the full scheme will be completed.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: By "present circumstances" does the Minister mean that part or whole of this rebuilding scheme for the Royal Naval Barracks comes within the £200 million capital expenditure?

Mr. Edwards: No, Sir, that is not exactly the case, but we are in difficulties with regard to building materials, labour and money at the present time, and that, of course, has to be taken into account.

Commander Noble: What has happened to the rather generous promises made in the Estimates for the last two years?

Mr. Edwards: What is happening is that we are doing all that is humanly possible to bring about those promises.

Reserve Officers (Home Fleet Cruise)

Commander Noble: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many Reserve officers for training were carried by ships of the Home Fleet during the recent summer cruise to the Baltic.

Mr. Dugdale: No Reserve officers were borne for training in ships of the Home Fleet during the recent summer cruise to the Baltic. I may add, however, that all those who volunteered for sea training during the past year were accommodated in His Majesty's ships.

Commander Noble: So that the whole of this picture may be seen, can the Financial Secretary say how many Pressmen were accommodated for this cruise?

Mr. Dugdale: No, Sir, I certainly cannot. A certain number were, and it is right that we should have adequate public relations with the Press. I see no objection to the Pressmen being so accommodated.

Mr. Austin: Can the Financial Secretary give the figures of the number of Reserve officers who volunteered for some sea training?

Mr. Dugdale: I can say, in fact, that 60 officers and 46 ratings did go for training in various ships during the year.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Did the ships go to sea?

Mr. Dugdale: Of course, they did.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: It is very unusual.

Requisitioned Beach, Felixstowe

Mr. J. H. Hare: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty when he intends to derequisition the stretch of beach along the shore of the River Orwell between the R.A.F. station and the Old Stone Pier at Felixstowe.

Mr. W. Edwards: Negotiations are now in hand with the owners, the Harwich Harbour Conservancy Board, for release of the last remaining stretch of beach held by the Admiralty along the shore of the River Orwell. It is not possible at this stage, therefore, to say when this site will be de-requisitioned, but I will write to the hon. Member as soon as negotiations are completed.

Mr. Hare: I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware of the great pleasure which this announcement will give to many hundreds of people from both Felixstowe and Ipswich, who for the last two years have been deprived of the use of this length of beach which at long last will again be made available to them.

Commander Noble: For what purpose is this bit of beach being held?

Mr. Edwards: It is not really being held for any particular purpose. The question of derequisition is one for negotiations and these are taking place now.

Retired Officers (Widows' Pensions)

Mr. Douglas Marshall: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, since provision was made under the Appendix to the Navy List, page 93, paragraph 5 (f) for widows' pensions, under certain circumstances granted prior to 17th December, 1929, to cover the period of the first world war, when he will consider reintroducing these measures for retired officers re-employed in the second world war.

Mr. John Dugdale: This is one of the points now under consideration in connection with the general review of the Regulations governing the grant of widows' pensions.

Mr. Marshall: As the Parliamentary Secretary is no doubt aware, he used the words "under consideration" to me in March. Can he tell me when, in fact, he is going to take action instead of saying "under consideration"?

Mr. Dugdale: No, Sir. As I made it quite clear in the answer, this is only one of many points that have to be taken into consideration.

Pacific Fleet

Commander Noble: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what is the present size of the Pacific Fleet; and how many of these ships are now in or east of Singapore.

Mr. Dugdale: I regret I am unable to give the information asked for, and in this connection I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence in reply to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas) during the Debate on the Address on 27th October, 1947.

Commander Noble: In view of the fact that there is really no need for secrecy on this subject, could the Parliamentary Secretary say whether an estimate of two cruisers and eight destroyers is fair?

Mr. Dugdale: Really, Sir, I am not going to be led into making guesses. [HON. MEMBERS: "Guesses? "] All right, then, I am not going to be led into making statements. The hon. and gallant Member is quite entitled to make his own guesses, and I am not going to say whether such guesses are correct or are incorrect.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that in the Press last week there were reports giving detailed information, which came from high ranking Australian naval officers, about some alarming cuts in the Pacific Fleet, and is it not time that this House was told whether these reports are correct?

Mr. Dugdale: No, Sir. We do not think it desirable to give the general disposition of the Fleet, and the dispositions of the Fleet in the Pacific are among those details which it is not considered desirable to give.

Sir Ronald Ross: Has the Admiralty received any representation from Australia or New Zealand as to their concern at the weakness of the Pacific Fleet?

Mr. Dugdale: No, Sir, we have received none. We have kept them informed and we have received no such representation.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Counter Duties

Mr. Sidney Marshall: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will consider making some re-allocation of duties of counter officials in some of the larger post offices, so that such things as postage stamps, registered envelopes, etc., could be obtained from every serving department and thus avoid queues.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Wilfred Paling): It is the policy and practice so to spread the work at post office counters as to reduce queues to a minimum but this object would be defeated if every clerk was required to sell registered envelopes and stamped stationery. Additional to the stamp clerks most other clerks can supply postage stamps in small quantities. If the hon. Member has any particular counter in mind and will let me know, I shall be glad to investigate to see if anything further is possible to speed up the service.

Mr. Marshall: If I give the right hon. Gentleman the name of a post office where the practice which he has mentioned is not followed, will he have the matter looked into?

Mr. Paling: Yes, Sir.

Postage Rates, Forces Overseas

Mr. George Jeger: asked the Postmaster-General why he recently increased

the postage on air mail to Palestine; and whether he will reduce it from 6d., as this causes hardship to families of men in the Forces serving there.

Mr. D. Marshall: asked the Postmaster-General what are the reasons for the recent increase in the postage on correspondence sent by air to members of the Forces overseas; and what are the present rates for surface and air transmission, respectively.

Mr. Wilfred Paling: I appreciate the opportunity thus given me of dealing with a subject which has become a little confused. The recent increase in the postage rate for air conveyance to the Forces overseas followed a Government decision that the war-time arrangement of despatching ordinary letters up to one ounce prepaid 1½d. by air could no longer be justified, and that the charges for air conveyance must be raised to a level more in keeping with the cost. The 2½d. lightweight "Forces Letter," on the form obtainable from any post office, is available for transmission by air to all Forces to which an air service operates. I regret I can hold out no present hope of reduction in these rates. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a full statement of the air and surface letter rates of postage to the various Forces overseas.

Mr. H. Hynd: As Palestine is still an active service area, could not the Postmaster-General give a special dispensation for that area?

Mr. Paling: I have just said that all this matter was discussed by the Government and we came to the conclusion that we must put it up in some respects, but the lightweight "Forces Letter" still remains and only costs 2½d.

Mr. Marshall: Is the Minister aware of the confusion that has arisen with regard to the statement which he made, and will he make every endeavour to give great publicity to the statement he has made this afternoon?

Mr. Paling: I quite agree that this is not as widely known as we would like it to be. We did take the usual steps at the time when we made this change, but a large number of people still do not know about it. I hope that the Question and answer this afternoon will help in that direction.

Mr. Stokes: If I put down a question, will my right hon. Friend tell the House what it works out at per ton of air letters, and whether he is aware that the profit is perfectly fantastic?

Force
Services available and rates of postage


(A)



H.M. Forces in Europe (except British Element Trieste Force), including:
Surface Route


Letters


not exceeding 1 ounce
1½d.



each additional ounce
1d.



Central Mediterranean Force (C.M.F.)
Postcards
1d.



Malta Force
Air Mail



Light weight "Forces Letters"
2½d.




Letters



not exceeding 1 ounce
5d.
Air mail label should be affixed



exceeding 1 oucne but not exceeding 1½ ounces
6d.



exceeding 1½ ounces but not exceeding 2 ounces
8d.



for each additional ounce
3d.



Postcards
2½d.


(B)



British Element, Trieste Force
Surface route only



Letters



not exceeding 1 ounce
1½d.




each additional ounce
1d.




Postcards
1d.




Note: No air service offering advantage over surface transmission is available.


(C)



H.M. Forces outside Europe; and
Surface route



Letters


Palestine Police Force
not exceeding 1 ounce
1½d.




each additional ounce
1d.




Postcards
1d.




Air Mail



Lightweight "Forces Letters"
2½d.




Letters



not exceeding 1½ ounces
6d.
Air mail label should be affixed



each additional half ounce
6d.



Postcards
3d.


(D)



H.M. Ships
Surface route


c/o G.P.O., London.
Letters



not exceeding 1 ounce
1½d.




each additional ounce
1d.




Postcards
1d.




Air Mail



Lightweight "Forces Letters"
2½d.




Letters



not exceeding 1½ ounces
6d.
Air mail label should be affixed



each additional half ounce
6d.



Postcards
3d.



(or at the rates for H.M. Forces in Europe shown in (A) above if the sender knows the addressee to be serving in Europe or in a ship based on a European port).

Oral Answers to Questions — NEW CIVIL DEFENCE ORGANISATION

Mr. Howard: asked the Prime Minister whether any decision has yet been taken as to a future Civil Defence organisation.

Mr. Paling: If my hon. Friend puts a question down I will gladly answer it if I can.

Following is the statement:

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): My right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland hope shortly to enter into discussions with representative associations of local authorities on the basis of providing a new


Civil Defence organisation. This will consist partly of civilian static and mobile services and partly of military mobile columns trained in Civil Defence duties. The civilian static and mobile services will be attached, as far as practicable, to, and developed from, services such as the police, fire, medical and health services which in any event have other duties to perform. The military mobile columns will provide a reserve for reinforcement of local services where necessary. Recruiting for the civilian services will be on a part-time voluntary basis. Details of the scheme must await the results of the discussions. Provision will later be made for dispersal, shelter and other essential elements in an overall plan for Civil Defence in the light of the studies being made as to possibilities and requirements in this respect. My right hon. Friends hope in due course to have the assistance of the clubs and associations of men and women formerly connected with, or interested in, Civil Defence, and, indeed, of other voluntary agencies and the general public, in building up the civilian elements in the proposed new organisation.

Mr. Howard: Can the Prime Minister add to his eagerly awaited statement all the assurances possible on two points; first, that everything practicable will be done to enlist local good will and to decentralise initiative, and secondly, that the financial arrangements will not require volunteers to defray essential expenditure from their own pockets?

The Prime Minister: I can give an assurance on the first point. The second point is a detailed one on finance, and I would rather see it on the Paper.

Mr. Cooper: Is my right hon. Friend aware that valuable accommodation is being used by the Civil Defence organisation in which to keep obsolete stores, although the accommodation is required for purposes connected with production, particularly for the export trade? If he is given details of such cases will he have them looked into?

The Prime Minister: I am afraid that this matter does not arise out of the Question. It had better be put upon the Paper.

Mr. Keeling: Will the studies to which the Prime Minister referred include a study of the value of the black-out?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. All the experience of the last war will be taken into account and every point carefully studied.

Sir W. Smithers: Can the Prime Minister assure the House that the new Civil Defence organisation will be strong enough and adequate to deal with the enemies in our midst?

Mr. Scollan: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House what steps have been taken in the set-up of Civil Defence in future to deal with such things as atomic bombs that are likely to arrive in this country?

The Prime Minister: Naturally, in planning Civil Defence, all the possibilities are being taken into account.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES

Divine Service (Attendance)

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Minister of Defence what reports he has received from chaplains regarding attendances at religious worship since church attendance was made voluntary in the Forces; and whether he will furnish any information to show in each service how the work of padres is being supported.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. A. V. Alexander): Attendances at Divine Service in the Forces have declined considerably since church parades were abolished, but this is, in part, due to the fact that weekend leave is now granted on a wider scale. Attendance at midweek services and at the weekly chaplains' hours are, however, satisfactory. The work of the chaplains is recognised as of the greatest importance and has the fullest support in each Service.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Does not the Minister agree that the abolition of compulsory attendance was a retrograde step and will he consider reinstituting it as soon as possible?

Occupied Land

Mr. Granville Sharp: asked the Minister of Defence what approximate acreage of land in the United Kingdom is occupied by the Service Departments under D.R. 51, D.R. 52 and through renting and ownership, respectively; and whether D.R. 51 will lapse after 24th February, 1948.

Mr. Alexander: The Service Departments now hold about 512,500 acres under


Defence Regulation 51, and about 515,000 acres through renting or ownership. They exercise rights under Defence Regulation 52 over about 661,000 acres. As my hon. Friend was informed in reply to a Question on 16th July, it is proposed to extend the powers under Defence Regulation 51 beyond 24th February, 1948.

Mr. Shepherd: Can the Minister tell us when the often promised White Paper dealing with this issue will be forthcoming?

Mr. Alexander: I hope it will be placed before the House within a week or two.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Imports from Australia (Trade Distribution)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Food what method is employed for distributing food sent through commercial channels to this country from Australia; and what proportion of food exports from Australia to Great Britain is diverted to other destinations by the International Emergency Food Council.

The Minister of Food (Mr. Strachey): The principal foods imported from Australia through commercial channels are wines and spirits, rabbits, jam and marmalade, honey and essential oils; they are distributed through trade-controlled schemes approved by my Department. The I.E.F.C. has no power to divert food supplies from this country; it makes recommendations to the member Governments in regard to a limited number of foods from Australia. Of these foods, namely, oils and fats, wheat and flour, meat and meat products, dried peas and rice, the I.E.F.C. recommendations entail only 2 per cent. being sent to foreign countries, the whole of the balance being available for the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth territories.

Sir W. Smithers: Does not the Minister of Food realise that unless the destination of this food is made absolutely clear, our generous Australian cousins may be sending the food here under false pretences?

Mr. Strachey: I have not quite followed the hon. Member's point. As to destination, when food is bought from Australia it is, of course, bought for this country.

Cheese Ration (Working Builders)

Mr. Anthony Nutting: asked the Minister of Food whether he will grant the supplementary cheese ration to working builders on the same basis as it is at present granted to building trade workers.

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. We have already made a considerable concession to builders and I do not think we could go further.

Mr. Nutting: Are we to understand from the Minister's answer that, in accordance with true Socialist principles, the Government would deny much needed extra food to thousands of working builders in this country rather than face the hideous possibility of affording an extra cheese ration to Sir Malcolm McAlpine?

Mr. Strachey: I had not contemplated that interesting possibility.

Sugar (Re-Export)

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Food why 33,000 tons of refined sugar have been sold to the Persian Gulf from the United Kingdom refineries, when the sugar ration to United Kingdom consumers has been reduced.

Mr. Strachey: This sale forms part of a dollar-earning business which involves the import of additional raw sugar into this country from dollar sources, processing it here, and exporting the refined product at a considerable profit in dollars. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer told the House on 23rd October, the United Kingdom sugar ration has been cut in order to save dollars.

Mr. Hurd: May' I take it from the Minister's answer that this raw sugar is not being paid for in dollars in the first instance, and that this means a clear net gain to us in dollars?

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. It is being paid for in dollars but more dollars are earned on its resale refined.

Sir W. Smithers: Does the Minister then believe in the profit motive?

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Looking at this matter from the dollar point of view, would it not have been more advantageous to make this sugar available to sweet manufacturers in this country to


use for manufacturing sweets for export instead of exporting refined sugar?

Mr. Strachey: Sugar is made available for this purpose.

Mr. W. Fletcher: Does the Minister agree that the very high price paid for sugar in Cuba may lead to a loss on re-exports?

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. A very considerable profit is being earned on these re-exports.

Major Bruce: Will my right hon. Friend continue to protect the interests of this private enterprise which is making such a valuable re-export for the country's dollar needs?

Flour

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: asked the Minister of Food how his announcement of a saving of 4 per cent. in deliveries of flour for human consumption in the first six months of 1947 compared with the first six months of 1946 is reconciled with the saving of only 2.3 per cent. which appears from a comparison of the figures for those periods given in the October "Digest of Statistics."

Mr. Strachey: The figure of 4 per cent. saving quoted in my reply of 10th November, 1947, was based on actual deliveries from mills. The figures appearing in the "Digest of Statistics" are, as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary told the hon. Member on 17th November, based on returns from users, which may be late and incomplete. Differences between comparable figures of deliveries and consumption are to be accounted for by changes in stocks held by bakers and distributors.

Mr. Reid: If the Minister is referring to total disposals of flour, is it not the case that practically all the saving took place in the first quarter of the year and that in the second quarter there was very little? Does that not point to the fact that bread rationing was not the source of the saving?

Mr. Strachey: The saving was highest in the earlier period. It was about 7 per cent. In the period about which the right hon. and learned Gentleman asks it was about 4 per cent.

Priority Foods (Entitlement)

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware of the hardship caused to elderly people, invalids and infants forced, through lack of housing accommodation, to reside in small catering establishments through being denied a right to priority foods to which they otherwise would be entitled; and if he will ensure that people entitled to such priority are not deprived thereof by his order.

Mr. Strachey: Residents in catering establishments can obtain the priority foods to which they are entitled and if the hon. Member will let me know of any case where they have not been able to do so I will gladly look into it.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the information contained in the Question was supplied by one of his local food officers? Will he make it clear to the local food officers that residence in a catering establishment does not debar people who are otherwise entitled to priority foods?

Mr. Strachey: Certainly, Sir. Perhaps the hon. Member will send me particulars.

Dried Bananas (Imports)

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Minister of Food what was the total importation of dried bananas for 1946; and, in view of their great dietetic value and convenience of transport and storage, as compared with fresh bananas, he will arrange for the maximum importation in future.

Mr. Strachey: Imports of dried bananas during 1946 amounted to 1,074 tons, all from the British Cameroons. Imports under licence are arriving this year also. As a general rule the public much prefer to get bananas fresh.

Mr. Freeman: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the importation during the present year will be greater or less than last year?

Mr. Strachey: Dried bananas—about double, we hope.

Potatoes

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Food whether, in order to sustain, as far as possible, the diet of families with


young children, he will increase from 1½ lbs. to 3 lbs. the potato ration of infants under five years of age.

Mr. Strachey: We have tried to meet the needs of the family with young children by giving an additional 7 ozs. of bread to all children and young people between the ages of five and 18. Consumer surveys indicate that, in fact, children under five do not eat as many potatoes as adults.

Mr. Collins: While I appreciate that children under five do not eat as many potatoes as adults, may I ask if the Minister is not aware that rations in all families are pooled and that in order to give the younger children sufficient others go without? Would he not, therefore, consider this concession?

Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir. I will certainly consider it, and if and when further potatoes are available we will increase this and other allowances.

Mr. Piratin: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that children over five who go to school, generally eat meals at school, and, therefore, the gap between the under fives and the over fives is greater than one and a half pounds? Will he consider the matter further in accordance with the proposal made by my hon. Friend?

Mr. Strachey: I will certainly consider it.

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Food if he will indicate how the estimated crop of eight million tons of potatoes from the 1947 harvest will be disposed of, apart from the approximate requirement of four million tons for the domestic ration.

Mr. Strachey: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) on 12th November.

Mackerel (Prices)

Mr. Edward Evans: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that the price of mackerel has risen by 300 to 400 per cent. since the control price was lifted; and what steps he proposes to take in order to mitigate hardship to the housewife while ensuring a fair return to the fishing industry.

Mr. Strachey: Mackerel prices have risen sharply though not by the amount suggested since control was lifted. But the controlled price was so low that it seriously reduced landings, which I am glad to say have now doubled in comparison with the corresponding months of last year.

Mr. Evans: Will the Minister give us the price of mackerel today, because my information is that a pair of mackerel today costs 2s. 3d., which is a very great hardship for a housewife? Is the Minister aware that I was actually on the market at an East Coast port when the price jumped from 3s. 6d. to 14s. 6d. per stone on the day controls were removed?

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. Our information is that the average retail price, though there are wide variations in different markets, is between 1s. and 1s. 3d. today. That is undoubtedly nearly double what it was before, but the supplies are about double, too.

Pheasants (Prices)

Mr. E. Evans: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that the removal of the control price of pheasants has resulted in an increase of price to the consumer of from 19s. per brace to 42s. per brace immediately the control was lifted and that it is now 63s. per brace; and if he will re-impose the controls.

Mr. Strachey: Prices for pheasants have risen considerably since price control was removed. The quantity available is in any case negligible as a food for the mass of the population. I am convinced that it would be a mistake to distract my necessarily limited staff from administering and enforcing the really vital controls by attempting to control the prices of these foods, the total supply of which is in any case insignificant.

Bacon, Sugar and Dried Eggs (Stocks)

Mrs. Leah Manning: asked the Minister of Food at what date he expects to restore the ration of bacon, sugar and dried eggs.

Mr. Strachey: As these rations have been cut, not because the foodstuffs are unavailable, but because dollars could not be provided for their purchase, I can form no estimate of when it may be possible to restore the ration level.

Mrs. Manning: Though this may be true of bacon and perhaps of dried egg, in view of the fact that there are large stocks of sugar in the country which have already been bought, why is it not possible for the sugar ration to be increased and the sweet ration to remain as it is at present?

Mr. Strachey: Because, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained, it has been decided to put the sugar which is being imported and will be imported into stock.

Mrs. Manning: May we ask why?

Mr. Drayson: The Minister will agree that he has just admitted that there are ample supplies of these commodities. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, he did. Would he not also agree that the fact that these commodities—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is asking for an opinion. He is not asking for information.

Mr. Drayson: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether the fact that these commodities attract a high rate of food subsidy, influences him in determining whether or not to make them available to the public?

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. The food subsidy has nothing to do with it. It does not cost any dollars to pay a food subsidy on it, as the hon. Member will see if he reflects for a moment. What is in question—hon. Members opposite are shaking their heads; do they think the food subsidies are paid in dollars? What is in question is the amount of dollars which can be allocated for their purchase, and it has been decided that no more than these quantities of food can be purchased because of lack of dollars. It has nothing to do with the food subsidies.

Mr. Assheton: Is it not a fact that if the sugar ration were to be increased, the Minister would have to go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for an increased subsidy?

Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir, but nobody minds that. That is not the limiting factor. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ask the Chancellor."] Certainly the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not mind providing that extra amount of sterling internally. It is not the same as the dollars

required to buy the sugar. Surely hon. Members are capable of understanding that?

Mrs. Manning: Will my right hon. Friend tell us why it is better to keep sugar in stock than to give it to housewives to put on the plates of their children?

Mr. Strachey: As I said, it has been decided—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why? "]—that although this sugar has been bought and will be bought under contracts which cannot be got out of, the sugar will be stock-piled in this country and the stock will be regarded as equivalent to dollars. That is why.

Mr. Eden: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to explain to us a little more what this means?

Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir. Certainly.

Mr. Eden: As I understand it, the sugar has been purchased or will be purchased under existing contracts. What is the advantage in not now distributing the sugar? So far as I can understand what the right hon. Gentleman has said—[Interruption.]—I am only trying to ascertain what he means; there is nothing in it to laugh about. What is the advantage in not now distributing the sugar, and how can that save any dollars?

Mr. Strachey: The stocks can be regarded, since they were purchased in dollars and would only be replaceable in dollars, as being equivalent to dollars in this country.

Fruit and Vegetables (Distribution)

Mrs. Manning: asked the Minister of Food if the committee controlling the distribution of fruit and vegetables is yet operating; and what steps it is taking to control the price of root vegetables now that potatoes are rationed.

Mr. Strachey: As I informed my hon. Friend on 27th October the new Fruit and Vegetable Organisation is already at work. Potato rationing has, so far, had a marked effect on the prices of root vegetables in London and Birmingham alone. In a number of other markets swedes for instance are still selling at or below the old controlled price; this is also true of cabbage in a number of areas. However, vegetable prices are a matter of constant concern to us and we shall take


any steps which seem to us calculated to increase the total supply of vegetables which can actually be bought by the people.

Mrs. Manning: May I have an answer to my Question which was not what would be the effect of potato rationing on the price of root vegetables, but the effect of this new control board on the price of root vegetables?

Mr. Strachey: It is the function of the Ministry of Food to effect price control, not that of the board. The function of the board, as described very carefully in its terms of reference, is to improve methods of distribution and marketing.

Mrs. Castle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the greatest stringency in the question of potatoes has not yet been felt, partly because people have some supplies still in hand, but as they run out of these supplies the need for other fillers at a low price will be essential? Will the Minister please take steps now to see that the price of root vegetables does not move beyond the purses of ordinary people?

Mr. Strachey: My hon. Friend may rest assured that this is recognised as a matter of the utmost importance, but if root vegetable or other vegetable prices are held too low, it will restrict the supply and we have to take that into consideration as well.

Mrs. Middleton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the price of all vegetables has, in some districts, gone up steeply since the Potato Rationing Order, and in view of this, will he take some emergency steps in order to control this phenomenon?

Mr. Strachey: My hon. Friend should not exaggerate the change in prices. In swedes, for example, the old controlled price was 1¾d. per lb. and in some markets they are selling at 2d., and in Northern industrial areas at 2½d. It is only in London that they are up to 3d. per lb. In most markets there is only a ¼d. difference, so it has not had a very great effect at present.

Mrs. Middleton: Is the Minister aware that in some areas brussels sprouts are 1s. to 1s. 3d. a pound?

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the price of swedes

today has risen to £15, and will soon be £20 a ton, and that consequently farmers are tempted to dispose of the sheep and cattle to which the swedes would otherwise be fed, and this will have a deleterious effect on meat and milk supplies next year—all in consequence of potato rationing?

Mr. Strachey: Yes, but it is important, in view of our supplies of potatoes, that some supplies of swedes should be withdrawn from consumption by animals for the purpose of consumption by human beings. That is necessary, and that is one of the effects of the increase in price.

Mr. Collins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that although it is true that all root and green vegetables are at the same or lower prices compared with two weeks ago, there will inevitably be a shortage in the comparatively near future, and will he not, therefore, consider imposing reasonable maximum prices now before the matter gets out of hand, as it certainly will?

Sir W. Smithers: When will the Minister of Food realise that the more he increases controls, the more he increases shortages?

Mr. Speaker: These hypothetical questions are matters of opinion and argument and are hardly in Order. I have recommended the hon. Member once or twice to study page 336 of Erskine May.

Sir W. Smithers: Without breaking the Rules, may I ask the Minister of Food when he will realise that the remedy of controls is worse than the disease?

ROYAL WEDDING (ACCESS TO HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT)

Mr. Speaker: It has been brought to my notice by some hon. Members that there was a statement in the Press, I think yesterday, about closing Westminster Station tomorrow. Therefore I thought I would make some inquiries from Scotland Yard. I am told by them that it is not proposed to close Westminster Underground station tomorrow morning; and that the gate to the subway leading to the House of Commons will be open at 8 a.m. instead of at 9.30 a.m., so that I think those statements in the newspapers were unfounded.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. H. Morrison.]

CIVIL LIST (KING'S MESSAGE)

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Stafford Cripps): I beg to move,
That a Select Committee be appointed to consider His Majesty's Most Gracious Message of the 18th day of this instant November relating to Provision for Her Royal Highness the Princess Elizabeth and Lieutenant Philip Mountbatten, R.N., on the occasion of their marriage, and to the Civil List and other matters connected therewith.
The House has already expressed to Their Majesties the King and Queen, and to Her Royal Highness the Princess Elizabeth, their loyal congratulations on the marriage of Her Royal Highness to Lieutenant Philip Mountbatten which is to be celebrated tomorrow.
The House will recall that provision for maintaining the honour and dignity of the Crown and for the Royal Family was made by the Civil List Act of 1937 on the recommendation of the Select Committee of this House. In their Report, the Select Committee, after making certain recommendations regarding the provision for Princess Elizabeth, said this:
Your Committee have made no recommendation for any special provision for Her Royal Highness the Princess Elizabeth in the event of her marriage because they are of the opinion that it would be for Parliament to make such provision as may seem proper at that time in the light of the circumstances then prevailing.
In the Gracious Message which I delivered to the House yesterday, His Majesty has shown himself, as always, very conscious of the difficulties of his people and, while asking the House to give consideration to the provision to be made for the Princess Elizabeth on her marriage, has offered to make available a sum derived from savings on the Civil List made during the war years, in order that for a period the provision made for the Princess should impose no additional charge on public funds.
I am sure that this House will deeply appreciate His Majesty's recognition of our present economic troubles and the generous and characteristic offer that he

has made of assistance. It is not for me, I think, to say any more at this stage. In accordance with precedent, the Gracious Message should be referred to a Select Committee, and I hope that any further discussion of this matter may be deferred until that Committee has reported. I accordingly recommend this Motion to the House.

Mr. Eden: I desire briefly to associate my right hon. and hon. Friends on this side of the House with all that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said and with the proposal he has made. I only desire to add that we all feel that this characteristically generous offer of His Majesty is fully in temper with the lead that has always been given to the country in times of difficulty by our Royal House.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That the Committee have power to examine all witnesses who voluntarily appear before them and to report their observations to the House:
That the Committee do consist of Twenty-one Members:
That the Prime Minister, Sir John Anderson, Mr. Benson, Mr. Butcher, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Churchill, Miss Colman, Mr. Corlett, Mr. Clement Davies, Mr. Eden, Mr. Foot, Mr. Arthur Greenwood, Mr. Howard, Mr. Kirkwood, Mr. Lawson, Mr. McGhee, Sir Hugh O'Neill, Mr. Scott-Elliot, Mr. Stanley, Mr. Maurice Webb, and Earl Winterton be Members of the Committee:
That Five be the Quorum.

CAEN UNIVERSITY (HOUSE OF COMMONS GIFT)

Mr. Benson: I beg to move:
That upon the occasion of his forthcoming visit to France, Mr. Speaker do present as a gift from this House to the Library of the University of Caen, the 231 volumes of 'La Collection des documents inédits sur l'histoire de France' now in the Library of the House of Commons.
The purpose of this Motion is to assist the rebuilding of the Library of the University of Caen, which was destroyed during the war in July, 1944. As Chairman of the Library of this House, I am deeply conscious of the problems we have had to face in attempting to fill comparatively small gaps in our own Library. How great must be the difficulties of attempting in these days to rebuild a Library de novo, can only be imagined. Any such


attempt must be impossible without generous help, and as learning is international and knows no national bounds, and anything that affects the scholarship of France must also affect scholarship elsewhere, it seems to me that that help must be international also.
I do not think any hon. Member will deny that this great collection of historical French documents, which go back to the fourteenth century, will be of far greater utility to a French university library than it would be to hon. Members of this House. It seems to me appropriate that this international help should come, not only from this country, but from this House, because when the Library of Caen was destroyed, it was destroyed by British bombs.

Mr. Pickthorn: I beg to second the Motion.

Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS

REPORT [12th November.]

Resolutions reported:

BEER (EXCISE)

1. "That, as from the thirteenth day of November, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, the rates of the duty of excise charged in respect of beer under Section one -of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1939, shall be increased by adding—

(a) nineteen shillings and a penny halfpenny to the sums of seven pounds and sevenpence halfpenny specified in Part I of the First Schedule to the Finance Act, 1944; and
(b) eightpence halfpenny to the sum of five shillings and twopence halfpenny so specified;
and, in the case of beer in respect of which it is shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise that duty at the rates increased as aforesaid has been paid, the excise drawback allowed under the said Section one shall be allowed at rates increased by adding—

(i) nineteen shillings and a penny halfpenny to the sums of seven pounds and nine-pence halfpenny specified in Part II of the said First Schedule; and
(ii) eightpence halfpenny to the sum of five shillings and twopence halfpenny so specified.

"And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

BEER (CUSTOMS)

2. "That, as from the thirteenth day of November, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, the rates of the duty of customs charged in respect of beer under Section one of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1939, shall be increased by adding—

(a) nineteen shillings and a penny halfpenny to the sums of seven pounds one shilling and a halfpenny specified in Part III of the First Schedule to the Finance Act, 1944, and the sums of eight pounds one shilling and a halfpenny specified in Part IV of that Schedule; and
(b) eightpence halfpenny to the sums of five shillings and twopence halfpenny specified in those parts of that Schedule;
and in the case of beer in respect of which it is shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise that duty at the rates increased as aforesaid has been paid, the customs drawback allowed under the said Section one shall be allowed at rates increased by adding—

(i) nineteen shillings and a penny halfpenny to the sums of seven pounds and


ninepence halfpenny specified in Part V of the said First Schedule and the sums of eight pounds and ninepence halfpenny specified in Part VI of that Schedule; and
(ii) eightpence halfpenny to the sums of five shillings and twopence halfpenny specified in those Parts of that Schedule.

And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

SPIRITS (EXCISE)

3. "That, as from the thirteenth day of November, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, the rate of the duty of excise charged on spirits by Section three of the Finance Act, 1920, in addition to the duties specified in Part III of the First Schedule to that Act, shall be increased to nine pounds ten shillings and ten pence per gallon computed at proof

TABLE.


Description of Spirits
Preferential rates.
Full rates.


In cask.
In bottle.
In cask.
In bottle.



£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


For every gallon computed at proof of—



Brandy or rum
9
11
2
9
12
2
9
13
8
9
14
8


Imitation rum or geneva
9
11
3
9
12
3
9
13
9
9
14
9


Unsweetened spirits other than those already enumerated
9
11
3
9
11
3
9
13
9
9
13
9


For every gallon of perfumed spirits
12
12
0
12
13
0
12
16
0
12
17
0


For every gallon of liqueurs, cordials, mixtures and other preparations in bottle entered in such manner as to indicate that the strength is not to be tested
—
12
18
10
—
13
2
2


For every gallon computed at proof of spirits of any description not heretofore mentioned, including naphtha and methylic alcohol purified so as to be potable, and mixtures and preparations containing spirits
9
11
3
9
12
3
9
13
9
9
14
9

And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

WINES (CUSTOMS)

5. "That, as from the thirteenth day of November, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, the duties of customs charged on wines under paragraph (a) and paragraph (c) of Subsection (1) of Section three of the Finance (No. 2) Act. 1939, shall respectively be charged at the rates set out in Part I and Part II of the following Table, and the duty charged under paragraph (b) of that Subsection on wine not exceeding twenty-seven degrees of proof spirit and being an Empire product shall be calculated accordingly.

And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

SPIRITS (CUSTOMS)

4. "That, as from the thirteenth day of November, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, the duties of customs charged on spirits of the descriptions set out in the first column of the following Table by Section three of the Finance Act, 1920, in addition to the duties specified in Part II of the First Schedule to that Act, shall—

(a) in the case of spirits being Empire products, be charged at the rates shown in the second column of that Table; and
(b) in the case of spirits not being Empire products, be charged at the rates shown in the third column of that Table.

TABLE.


PART I.


Wines not being Empire Products,


Description of Wine.
Rate of duty per gallon.



£
s.
d.


Not exceeding 25 degrees proof spirit
1
2
0


Exceeding 25 degrees proof spirit and not exceeding 42 degrees proof spirit
2
4
0


For every degree or fraction of a degree above 42 degrees proof spirit, an additional duty
0
3
8


Sparkling, an additional duty
1
2
0


Still, in bottle, an additional duty
0
3
6

And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

SWEETS (EXCISE)

6. "That, as from the thirteenth day of November, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, the duty of excise on sweets shall be charged at the rates set out in the following Table:


Description of Sweets.
Rate of duty per gallon.



£
s.
d.


Not exceeding 27 degrees proof spirit
0
19
6


Exceeding 27 degrees proof spirit
1
4
6


Sparkling, an additional duty
0
15
6

And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

PURCHASE TAX

7. "That, in the case of purchase tax becoming due on or after the thirteenth day of November, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, in respect of any goods other than mechanically propelled road vehicles and mechanically propelled cycles, the higher, intermediate, basic and reduced rates shall be respectively five-fourths, three-fourths, one-half and one-third of the wholesale value of the goods."

POOL BETTING DUTY

8. "That an excise duty of ten per cent. of the stake money paid shall be charged on pool betting (including coupon and other similar betting and totalisator betting), except betting by means of a totalisator set up on an approved horse racecourse by or under the authority of the Racecourse Betting Control Board, and any Act of the present Session giving effect to this Resolution may contain provisions consequential on or incidental to the preceding provisions of this Resolution."

PROFITS TAX.

9. "That—

(a) the rates of twelve and a half per cent., seven and a half per cent. and three per cent. mentioned in Sections thirty, thirty-six and forty-two of the Finance Act, 1947, shall be raised to twenty-five per cent., fifteen per cent. and six per cent., respectively;
(b) interest at three per cent. per annum shall be payable on unpaid profits tax;
(c) the said interest and any interest payable on income tax (including surtax) or excess profits tax shall not be deducted in computing profits or losses for the purposes of the profits tax;
(d) the preceding provisions of this Resolution shall be deemed always to have had effect, except that interest shall in no case begin to run before the first day of January, nineteen hundred and forty-eight;
(e) half only of the advertising expenses which would otherwise be allowable shall be allowed to be deducted in computing the profits or the losses of a trade or business, for any chargeable accounting period ending after the twelfth day of November, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, for any of the purposes of the enactments relating to the profits tax;
(f) any Act of the present Session giving effect to this Resolution may contain provisions consequential on or incidental to any of the preceding provisions of this Resolution."

INCOME TAX (INTEREST ON UNPAID TAX)

10. "That—

(a) interest at three per cent. per annum shall be payable on unpaid income tax (including surtax);
(b) the said interest and any interest payable on profits tax or excess profits tax shall be paid without deduction of income tax and shall not be allowed to be deducted in computing the amount of any income or loss for any of the purposes of the Income Tax Acts;
(c) the preceding provisions of this Resolution shall be deemed always to have had effect, except that interest shall in no case begin to run before the first day of January, nineteen hundred and forty-eight; and
(d) any Act of the present Session giving effect to this Resolution may contain provisions consequential on or incidental to any of the provisions aforesaid."

INCOME TAX (ADVERTISING EXPENSES)

11. "That half only of the advertising expenses which would otherwise be allowable shall be allowed to be deducted in computing the profits or gains, or the losses, of a trade, profession or vocation for any of the purposes of the Income Tax Acts, for the year 1947–48 or any subsequent year of assessment."

First to Seventh Resolutions agreed to.

Eighth Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Sir Alan Herbert: On a point of Order. Do I understand aright that I am not permitted to speak on, or to explain the Motion I have on the Order Paper which is to leave out Resolution 8?

Mr. Speaker: No, by our new Standing Orders, these Resolutions all go through

at once. There can be no discussion of them.

Sir A. Herbert: May I ask what exactly is the point of our present Proceedings?

Mr. Speaker: No, no question can be asked. The questions have to be put and there can be no discussion on them.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 242; Noes, 7.

Division No. 24.]
AYES.
[3.41 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Lindgren, G. S.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Lipson, D. L.


Attewell, H. C.
Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Upton, Lt.-Col. M.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Longden, F.


Austin H Lewis
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Lyne, A. W.


Awbery, S. S.
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
McAdam, W.


Ayles, W. H.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
McEntee, V. La T.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Evans, John (Ogmore)
McGhee, H G.


Bacon, Miss A.
Ewart, R.
McGovern, J.


Balfour, A.
Fairhurst, F.
Mack, J. D.


Barstow, P. G.
Farthing, W. J.
McKinlay, A. S.


Bartlett, V.
Fernyhough, E.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Barton, C.
Field, Capt W. J.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)


Battley, J. R.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Mainwaring, W. H.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Foot, M. M.
Mallalieu, J. P W.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Foster, W. (Wigan)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)


Benson, G.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Medland, H. M.


Berry, H.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Mellish, R. J.


Beswick, F.
Gibbins, J.
Middleton, Mrs. L.


Bevan, Rt Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Gilzean, A.
Mitchison, G. R.


Bing, G. H. C.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Moody, A. S.


Binns, J.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Morley, R.


Blackburn, A. R.
Grierson, E.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Blyton, W. R.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H (Lewisham, E.)


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Moyle, A.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Gunter, R. J.
Nally, W.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Guy, W. H
Naylor, T. E.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Hale, Leslie
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Bramall, E. A.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Hardy, E A.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Noel-Buxton, Lady


Buchanan, G.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Oliver, G. H.


Burden, T. W.
Hobson, C. R.
Paget, R. T.


Callaghan, James
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)


Carmichael, James
House, G.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hoy, J.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Chamberlain, R. A.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Parker, J.


Champion, A. J.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Pearson, A.


Chater, D.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Peart, T. F.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Perrins, W.


Cluse, W. S.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Piratin, P.


Cobb, F. A.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)


Cocks, F. S.
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool, Edge Hill)
Popplewell, E.


Collick, P.
Irving, W. J, (Tottenham, N.)
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Collins, V. J.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Proctor, W. T.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Janner, B.
Pryde, D. J.


Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
Jay, D. P. T.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Corlett, Dr. J.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Randall, H. E.


Corvedale, Viscount
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)
Rankin, J.


Crawley, A.
John, W.
Rees-Williams, D. R.


Daines, P.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Reeves, J.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Keenan, W.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Kendall, W D.
Rogers, G. H. R.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Kenyon, C.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Diamond, J.
Lang, G.
Royle, C.


Dobbie, W.
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.
Sargood, R.


Dodds, N. N.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Scollan, T.


Donovan, T.
Leonard, W.
Scott-Elliot, W.


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Leslie, J. R.
Segal, Dr. S.


Durbin, E. F. M.
Levy, B. W.
Shackleton, E. A. A


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Sharp, Granville




Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
West, D. G.


Silverman, S. S (Nelson)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)


Skinnard, F. W.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)
Thurtle, Ernest
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Snow, J. W.
Tiffany, S.
Wilkes, L


Solley, L. J.
Timmons, J.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Sorensen, R W.
Titterington, M F.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Soskice, Maj. Sir F.
Tolley, L.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Sparks, J. A.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Stamford, W.
Viant, S. P.
Willis, E.


Stokes, R. R.
Wadsworth, G.
Wills, Mrs. E. A


Stubbs, A. E.
Walker, G. H.
Woodburn, A.


Sylvester, G. O.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)
Wyatt, W


Symonds, A. L.
Warbey, W. N.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Watkins, T E.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Watson, W. M.



Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Mr. Simmons and Mr. Wilkins.




NOES.


Channon, H.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)



De la Bère, R.
Smithers, Sir W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Sir Alan Herbert and


Mellor, Sir J.

Sir Harold Webbe.


Resolution agreed to.

REPORT [17th November.].

Resolution reported:
That—

(a) interest at three per cent. per annum shall be payable on unpaid excess profits tax;
(b) paragraph (a) of this Resolution shall be deemed always to have had effect, except that interest shall in no case begin to run before the first day of January, nineteen hundred and forty-eight; and
(c) any Act of the present Session giving effect to this Resolution may contain provisions consequential on or incidental to any of the provisions aforesaid."

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution and upon the Resolutions reported from the Committee of Ways and Means on 12th November and agreed to this day, by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Glenvil Hall.

FINANCE BILL

"to grant certain duties, to alter other duties and to make certain amendments in the law relating to the Public Revenue," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 13.]

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Question [18th November], "That the Bill be now read a Second time."—[Mr. A. Bevan.]

Which Amendment was, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead there of:
this House while recognising the necessity of a measure for revising the current system of Exchequer grants so as equitably to relieve and adjust the burdens of ratepayers, declines to give a second reading to a Bill which fails to achieve those objects, inasmuch as it provides no adequate means to deal with the continued rise of rates due to the ever-increasing expenditure which local authorities are required to undertake; establishes no direct relation between local expenditure and Exchequer assistance, and by the inadequacy of the proposed equalisation grants deprives many authorities of this type of Exchequer assistance altogether; presupposes uniformity of valuation which, owing to the unsuitable machinery provided, cannot be achieved for at least four years; and, in its proposals for valuation of dwelling-houses discriminates unfairly between ratepayers in similar economic circumstances."—[Lieut.-Colonel Elliot.]

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

3.55 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn): The history and character of British democracy are bound up with the development of our local government. In government, as in industry, there is a continual temptation to seek mere size of unit under the delusion that bigness is necessarily the same as efficiency. Nowhere would this tendency be more dangerous than in the temptation to centralise all administration in the State and to allow local government to wither away. Yet the natural tendency of geographical, economic and other differences within our country creates such great and unfair anomalies that the State for many years has had to redress this balance. It has been done by various methods of compensating grants by the State to local authorities. In this way we have combined the fairness of the incidence of our taxation with the preservation of the intimacy of our local government. It would be a tragedy if, in our efforts to secure a fair distribution of well being, we allowed the machinery of government necessary to accomplish this to impose upon us a uniformity which obliterated the varieties of character

which together constitute the greatness of our nation.
On this ground, Scottish Members naturally will scrutinise any Measures affecting local government in Scotland with a healthy vigilance to ensure that there are no encroachments on their right to preserve their own culture which, they are proud to believe, has a special contribution to make to civilisation in our own and other countries. However, there are economic matters, such as taxation and its spending, which are United Kingdom affairs. In some cases, it is an economy in Parliamentary time and in overhead costs of administration to make one bite at the cherry. The present Kill is such a Bill. Of course, there are valid arguments why, even in this case, there should have been separate legislation and purely English and Scottish aspects thus presented free from the complications arising from mixing them as different parts of a United Kingdom Bill. The first question I put to myself, therefore, is, "Why this Bill? "The reasons why one Bill has been decided upon in this case—

Vice-Admiral Taylor: On a point of Order. Is it in Order for the Secretary of State for Scotland to read the whole of his speech? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not? "] Because it is not in Order.

Mr. Speaker: When these rather careful statements have to be made, one makes extensive use of notes. One does not know that the Secretary of State for Scotland is going to stick word for word to everything that has been written.

Mr. McKinlay: Would it not assist the work of this House if the hon. and gallant Gentleman would read his speeches instead of speaking extempore?

Mr. Woodburn: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but I have no particular speech to read on this page of my notes.
As I was saying, the question is, therefore, "Why one Bill in this case? "First, the principles in this Bill apply to the whole of the United Kingdom. There is no point in having two Bills to apply one principle. In the case of the railways, canals, and electricity undertakings,


these are organised on a United Kingdom basis. Therefore, the application of the law to these bodies must be done on a United Kingdom basis. The third reason which, perhaps, is an urgent one, is the existing pressure of Parliamentary time. It would have been rather difficult to carry two Bills through the House in the time available in order to bring this business into operation. I would remind the House of the form of the Bill. Part I deals with grant provisions in England and Wales. Part II deals with grant provisions in Scotland. Parts III and IV deal with the new valuation procedure which is to apply to England and Wales. In the case of Scotland we do not need this new procedure as our own procedure is considered to be quite satisfactory, or at least relatively satisfactory. In Part V the Bill deals with railway and electricity authorities, which covers the United Kingdom. In Parts VI, VII and VIII there are a few special Scottish points. Therefore, quite legitimately the Bill covers the United Kingdom.
The main part of this Bill has for its purpose the bringing about of a more equitable share of the rate burden for the population as a whole. The Bill makes a complete change in the financial relationship between the State and the local authorities. It has been necessary in reorganising grants to local authorities to take into account the fact that the State is now relieving local authorities of the costs of hospital and poor relief. At the same time, the Government are discontinuing the existing block grant system which was introduced in the 1929 Act. We are also revising the basis of distributing education grants, but this does not appear in the Bill as it requires no legislation. Scotland will continue to receive its share of the education grants on the same principles as formerly. The new equalisation grants will come into force for Scotland on 16th May next year, and the old block grants will be brought to an end on 5th July. During this overlapping period both grants will be payable. The new grants are to be paid to counties and large burghs in Scotland. This new system will provide sufficient assistance to level out the rating resources as between the more fortunate and the less fortunate local authorities.

Sir William Darling: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by "fortunate"?

Mr. Woodburn: The hon. Gentleman is one of the fortunate people—I am one of the less fortunate. In this connection it has been necessary to establish an average rateable value per head of the weighted population. It would have been difficult to make a precise United Kingdom average because of the differences arising from the differing standards of valuation in England and Scotland. I have, therefore, taken the average of England and Wales in order that the standard should be the most favourable in the allocation of the grants. To equate this rateable value it has been necessary to add to the English average 25 per cent. in order to allow for the generally higher level of valuation in Scotland.
The effect of these arrangements is to ensure that the rate resources of local authorities in Scotland, and in England and Wales, are brought up to the same level. Grants to small burghs and on behalf of the landward areas of counties are provided for on exactly the same lines as now. Under the National Health Service Act grants to local authorities are in future to be paid at the flat rate of 50 per cent. of the relevant expenditure, instead of on a basis of a formula designed to reflect local needs. The reasons for this change, and in part for the change in the methods of distributing the education grant are that the local authorities' rate resources are to be ironed out by the new equalisation grant, and therefore there is no point in having several methods of ironing out inequalities as between different counties throughout Scotland.
Provision will be made in Clause 29 for an investigation to be carried out into the workings of the new arrangements not later than 1955–56, and thereafter in every fifth year. A report of the results of any such investigation must, under the Bill, be laid before Parliament. It will require some little time for local authorities to readjust themselves to the new arrangements, and in the few cases where no relief to rates is to accrue, transitional grants will be paid in such a way as to ensure that no authority in Scotland will get less than a relief to rates of 4⅘ pence in the £ This, of course, with our higher valuation is roughly equivalent to 6d. in


the £ in the England and Wales part of the Bill. This transitional grant is to be tapered off over a period of five years, at the end of which it will disappear. One great improvement in the new scheme is that the equalisation grants are to be determined every year. They will in this way be more closely related to the actual financial position of the local authorities, than the block grants were under the existing law which provided for a review only at five-year intervals.
This, however, means that it is impossible to say precisely what the effect of the new arrangement will be in any future year as this depends entirely on the expenditure of the local authorities for that year. It is for this reason that we are quite unable to give any reliable estimates for the year 1948–49 and the figures which we have offered in the White Paper are of a very provisional kind, showing how the new arrangements would have affected local authorities in Scotland if they had been in operation during the 1946–47 period. On this rough estimate the figures show that local authorities in Scotland would have received in 1946–47, by way of equalisation grants, about £5.18 million, and be relieved of an expenditure of £9.7 million, giving a total of £14.88 million to the good, in place of the present grants, which are being withdrawn, of £8.44 million. Subject to any additional expenditure which local authorities have incurred in respect of their own health services, the net saving to rates would have been about £6.44 million per year. This is equivalent to a rate relief of about 3s. in the £ over the whole of Scotland against 2s. in the £ for England and Wales on the same basis.
It will be seen from the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill that the corresponding relief to local authorities in England and Wales would have been about £39 million, which is equivalent to a rate of 2s. 5d. This rate of 2s. 5d. in the £ in England corresponds to a Scottish rate of approximately 2s. in the £, which means that the Scottish ratepayer, on the average of England and Wales, needs this greater relief to bring him up to the weighted average. By this showing, Scotland has been in a deficiency position up to now, and this Bill will rectify that by bringing it on to the same weighted average. In this

way Scotland is for the first time obtaining equality in rate burden. Again, taking the 1946–47 figures, 29 out of the 31 counties in Scotland, and 22 out of the 24 large burghs, would have benefited from the Exchequer equalisation grants.
The hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) yesterday quoted some of the figures given in the Press about Glasgow which I think show no contradiction to the figures given in the White Paper. There has been some misunderstanding. If, for instance, a local authority Would normally have been putting up its rates by 2s., and it saves 4s., the obvious saving to the rates is 2s., but the real' saving to the rates is still 4s., because the local authority has an extra 2s. to spend, which would have had to be raised by extra rates. The fact that Glasgow spends more on certain health services for which it has to raise extra rates, does not detract from the fact that there would still be a saving of 4s. on what the rates would have been under the present system.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I was not referring to a statement in the Press. I was quoting official figures given by the City Chamberlain of Glasgow, and the right hon. Gentleman will hear a great deal more about it before we finish.

Mr. Woodburn: The City Chamberlain's statement did appear in the Press—the "Glasgow Herald," I believe; I read it, and therefore it did appear in the Press. The fact still remains that Glasgow or any other town which has incurred expenditure in a way which
would normally increase its rates gets the relief. Even though the whole of that relief does not appear in the new rate, the relief is still there.
Part V of the Bill has only one special feature to which I need call attention, that is Clause 93 which deals with payments to be made by the Hydro-Electric Board. It is proposed that the Board should contribute to the local revenue in the North of Scotland district a sum calculated on the same principles as the contribution to be made by other bodies to whom this Part of the Bill applies; that is, other bodies in England and Scotland. The amount of this contribution will then be spread on the basis


of the rateable valuation for the whole of the Board's district. Separate provision on these lines has been made deliberately in order that the benefits to local revenues which would be expected to accrue from the development of new hydro-electric projects in the Highlands might be preserved to ratepayers of that area, but, of course, the benefit will go to the ratepayers of the whole area, and not to a particular section where the construction takes place.
For the rest, the Bill provides that, in the case of railways and canals, a contribution will be made by the British Transport Commission in respect of the whole of Scotland, and will be distributed evenly among all the local authorities in Scotland. In the case of electricity, the contribution to be made by the British Electricity Authority will similarly be distributed evenly over the whole of Scotland.
Part VI of the Bill provides for the payment of allowances for financial loss to members of local authorities and other bodies. This principle is new to England and Wales, but, of course, has been in operation in Scotland since the Education Act of 1918. It was applied to county councils in the Local Government (Scot-land) Act, 1929, and has worked satisfactorily ever since. It has made possible public service without grave hardship throughout Scotland, and, taking the country as a whole, has not been abused in any way. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) yesterday made some reflections on the standard of public service in Scotland. The hon. Member evidently measured public service in this way by whether or not a councillor required compensation for lost time, but, I think, he looks at this matter from the point of view of a person of independent means who is prepared to sacrifice some of his time for public service, and, indeed, in the past, the public service rested upon such people, and they have great accomplishments to their credit.
Their sacrifice, however, is really as nothing compared with that of the men who have sacrificed their jobs, promotion, their family life and even their health to carry their ideals into the public service. In order to give public service, men have shortened their lives by working on night shifts so as to be able to act as councillors.

Others have sacrificed wages and promotion which might have come to them in the normal way, and it is impossible to give too much honour to the public services rendered to this country in this and other innumerable ways. While service on public bodies must always call for work and sacrifice, there is no justification nowadays for it being designed to create hardship. Broadly, therefore, we have accepted the recommendations of the Lindsay Committee, and Clause 104 provides for the removal of this hardship in the case of nearly all public bodies.
A further improvement for Scotland, which in this case lagged behind England, is the provision that local authorities may provide allowances to conveners or provosts to facilitate the successful carrying out of their public duties. Every one of us in Scotland has personal knowledge of conveners of county councils who have had enormous work given to them and have had to do it at great personal sacrifice, and it would be wrong in principle that a convenership of a county council should be limited to the person who has private means to enable him to carry out his office in an appropriate way. In a number of case's, Scottish burghs have been able to make some provision by means of the common good funds, but the Bill now gives statutory authority to provide such allowances, and, I may say for the benefit of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malfon, no more than such allowances, as part of the normal expenditure of the council.
This Bill may be said to be another step forward in abolishing poverty in our country. In this sense, it abolishes the poor local authority whose income has been quite insufficient to provide all the amenities and services which a modern civilisation demands. We are one nation, and all citizens are essentially members of this community. Some of them, to do their duties, must live and work in isolated communities, while others have the financial advantage of large aggregations of population supported by industry and commerce. So far as possible, we should enable every citizen, wherever he may live and work, to enjoy all possible advantages which the nation can afford. This Bill, by equalising the costs to the rates of public services, removes the anomaly of the fortunate and unfortunate areas where accident either penalises or benefits the ratepayer merely according to


his geographical boundaries. Just as all are equal in the eyes of the law, so each citizen playing a part in the community will be able to obtain, as far as practicable, equality of service from the community, and, for that purpose, this Bill has been brought before the House.

4.16 p.m.

Commander Galbraith: On this, the first occasion which the right hon. Gentleman has addressed the House from that Box since he assumed the responsibilities of his high office of Secretary of State for Scotland, I think it would be the desire of the House, and also in accordance with its traditions, if I were to offer my congratulations to him, and that I do most sincerely. I can assure him that he has the good will of those who sit upon these Benches, and that he can look for our support at any time when he brings forward Measures which are to increase either the welfare or the prosperity of Scotland. I think I should warn him of one thing, however, and that is that we look upon the Secretary of State as the guardian of Scottish interests, and that, if he falls from that, he will naturally anticipate that we will be among the most severe of his critics.
Before I deal with the Bill, I feel it only right, as I am speaking for Scottish hon. Members today, that I should add to the protest which my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) made yesterday against the very hurried manner in which this Bill has been brought before this House for its Second Reading. After all, here we have a Bill which affects very deeply the finances of the local authorities, but, so far as I can find out, they have had no opportunity whatsoever to discuss, either in private or in public, with all the information made available to them, the vast repercussions and implications of the Bill. I have been informed that discussions took place between the Secretary of State and the three Scottish local authority associations in June, but that those who attended that meeting were enjoined to treat the papers issued to them as strictly confidential, and, as a result, local authorities were unable to ascertain how they would be affected or to make any real representations on a matter which is absolutely vital to them.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman allow me? This is the second occasion upon which this has been said. Does the hon. and gallant Member suggest that Ministers of the Crown should now discuss legislation and negotiate legislation with everybody in the country who may be concerned? It is the normal practice, and always has been, for Ministers to discuss these matters confidentially with representatives in order to get their advice.

Commander Galbraith: I know that that is the standpoint taken up by the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Bevan: And by my predecessor.

Commander Galbraith: I think my right hon. and gallant Friend made it clear yesterday that it was certainly not adopted when the Local Government (Scotland) Bill, 1929, was being discussed—

Mr. Bevan: I challenge that.

Commander Galbraith: I think that was made abundantly clear by my right hon. and gallant Friend. Anyway, from our point of view, we do not consider that it is right that a Bill of this nature, which vitally affects the local authorities, should have been brought forward until they had been given a full opportunity of discussing the proposals of the Secretary of State. The Bill was only ordered to
be printed on 24th October. When it was available to the Scottish local authorities I do not know, but, even assuming that it was made available to them on that very day, that was far too short a time, in my submission, for a Bill of this importance to be properly considered. The effects of this Bill could not be appreciated without an authoritative statement from the Government, and that statement, Command Paper 7256, should have been issued with the Bill. It was not available on Monday afternoon when I was in Glasgow, at a time when the Corporation's Parliamentary Bills Committee was actually considering this Bill. No official of the Corporation had a copy of that Command Paper made available to him, and the consequence is that we in this House who represent Glasgow constituencies have not got the considered views of our local authorities.

Mr. Woodburn: I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not wish to do my predecessor an injustice. No Bill of this kind is ever framed without going along, step by step, in a certain measure of agreement with the local authorities on the principles involved. While it is true that the White Paper was not published, I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman will agree that, as soon as the Bill was published, we at least made available to those interested our estimates of what the benefits were going to be. They were not presented to the House, I agree, but I think he will acknowledge that there was an estimate made available almost immediately as to what the consequences would be.

Commander Galbraith: I still consider that the time allowed to local authorities was far too short, and I am quite certain that if I and other hon. Members who represent Glasgow constituencies have been unable to obtain the views of our local authorities, hon. Members who come from more distant parts of Scotland do not know at all what their local authorities think concerning this Bill. I think that for the Government to ask, in the circumstances I have described, for the Second Reading of this Measure, is an affront to Scottish Members, and also to Scottish local authorities. I cannot help thinking that it is rather a bad opening to the right hon. Gentleman's tenure of office, and that, in the future, he must endeavour to curb the indecent haste of his right hon. Friend the Minister of Health and must endeavour to teach the right hon. Gentleman that neither Scottish Members nor the Scottish people will stand for matters in which they are so intimately concerned being treated in what I would consider to be a thoroughly unbusinesslike, undemocratic and offhand manner.
This Bill, as the right hon. Gentleman has reminded us, brings to an end the old Exchequer, or block, grant, and, in its place, it puts an equalisation grant. But, in spite of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I have been quite unable to discover what it is that has actually been equalised. It certainly does not equalise the rating burden to be borne by the individual ratepayer, and, after all, it was the effect on the individual ratepayer on which the Minister yesterday asked this House to concentrate its attention. The Secretary of State has

not mentioned that aspect. He dealt more with the position of authorities and not with the position of individuals, whereas his right hon. Friend yesterday stressed the position of the individual ratepayer as against the individual local authority. With respect, I would say to the right hon. Gentleman that I agree with his right hon. Friend that it is the individual whom we have to consider in this matter.
The disparity of the rate burden per head of the population is every bit as great under the system proposed by this Bill as it has ever been. It ranges from over £5 per head of the population in Peebles to 12s. per head in Orkney. Is it really suggested that the people who live in the remote part of Peebles, where conditions approximate to those of the Western Highlands, are able to bear a rating burden eight times as great as the people in Orkney, and more than three times as great as the ratepayers in Wigtown are asked to bear?

Mr. Woodburn: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman will agree that Peebles has some of the wealthiest industries in this country, whereas Orkney, while a prosperous community, cannot compare with Peebles as an industrial centre.

Commander Galbraith: That, from my point of view, is just where the right hon. Gentleman falls into the trap. I am not concerned with whether it is a wealthy authority or not, but with what the individual ratepayer has to pay. The burden is far heavier per head of the population in Peebles than it is in Orkney. One of the troubles, I think, is the very one which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned just now, that the basis adopted in this Bill—a valuation per head of the population—does not take sufficiently into account the conditions which arise in sparsely populated areas where there are commercial undertakings of high rateable value. The effect of the Bill in the case of Peebles, apart from the transitional grant, would be to raise the rates by no less than 2s. 1d. in the £. The House must remember that the transitional grant is going to expire altogether in five years' time. What, then, is going to be the position of such areas as I have mentioned?
If my memory serves me aright, I have always understood from the statements which were made by the right hon.


Gentleman, who was until recently Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the Government's intention was to introduce a Bill which would provide a new source of income for the local authorities, and assist the development areas and the highly-rated areas. This Bill really does very little indeed for one development area—the city of Glasgow. There we have an area which is to receive no equalisation grant and no transitional grant, and that in spite of the fact that it is one of the most highly rated areas in the country. Of course, the rates are going to be reduced for a period of uncertain length, but I maintain that that result—in spite of what the right hon. Gentleman said—is achieved because they handed over to the Regional Hospital Board their hospital service for which they did not receive adequate payment. The result is that it can now be argued that, through the reduction of their rates, they are only getting some measure of compensation for the moneys which they previously paid away.
I am very disappointed with the Bill in that it provides no new general source of income for the local authorities, no permanent relief to the development areas, and fails to bring their burden into line with those of other authorities. How very obvious that is if one looks at the figures in Command Paper 7256. There we discover that Edinburgh is to receive a transitional grant, that Birmingham is to receive an equalisation grant of £600,000, and that a development area—Glasgow—which suffered so badly in the years between the wars, is to receive nothing at all. The purpose of the Bill may well be to make things more equal, but I think it falls very far short of the levelling up which we hoped for and anticipated.
Now I want to deal with the matter of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke, and on which, seemingly, I take a very different view from him. It may be that his calculations are right and that mine are wrong; but in any case, I am going to put my point of view before the House. If certain of our Scottish local authorities feel that they have been treated inequitably, I think it is proper for us to examine whether Scotland is receiving treatment equal to that being meted out to England. The Bill lays down that the standard rateable value for Scotland shall be based on the average for England and

Wales plus 25 per cent. I am not quarrelling with that basis, but I am very definitely quarrelling with the 25 per cent. because I consider it is far too low. After all, in England valuation is based, in the first instance, on some figure which is below the rent, and from that deductions are then made, whereas in Scotland the rent is the assessed rent or the rateable value of the property; and on that count alone it is obvious that valuations in Scotland are higher than in England. Then we have the complication of the division of the rates between the owner and the occupier, as a result of which naturally the owner of the property, if he is to be adequately remunerated, has to add to the rent the owner's rates which he pays.
I will give a brief example for the benefit of hon. Members who are not acquainted with the Scottish rating system. It seems that if we take two houses, one in England and the other in Scotland, each valued at a rent of £30 a year, and in Scotland we have an owner's rate of 6s. 8d., which is a very common thing, then the rateable value of the English house will be below £30 and the rateable value of the Scottish house will be very close to £45. That is a difference not of 25 per cent., but of 50 per cent., and that is the figure at which the most competent authorities in Scotland have arrived after investigating and comparing the rateable value of various properties in the two countries. They have definitely come to the conclusion that to give justice to Scotland in this Measure, the figure should not be 25 per cent. but 50 per cent. It appears to me that in choosing the figure of 25 per cent. the Government are going back to the old days. So far as I remember this figure of 25 per cent. was adopted as long ago as 1919, and appears in the Housing Act of that year. It is now completely out of date. I will give one other example to prove my point. In Edinburgh the rateable value of a temporary house is £26. My information is that in some parts of England the rateable value of a similar house is £10.
There is another matter to which the Minister referred yesterday. It is that this Bill fails entirely to take any account of the matter which the block grant took most fully into account; that is, it compensated for the rates lost as a result of


derating. In those areas where no grant is to be received, such as Glasgow, the whole loss as a result of derating will now fall on the remaining rateable value of the area, and that loss will represent a very serious burden to several local authorities. In Glasgow it is calculated at £950,000 a year. In spite of what the Minister said yesterday, I think this Bill should have taken that matter into account. The equalisation grant is based on rateable value. It takes no account either of rate or grant-borne expenditure, and, as a result of Measures which we are passing and have passed in this House, that expenditure is going to increase very materially over the next 10 years. Rateable value will not increase in anything like the same proportion, and, in consequence, the burden on the ratepayers is going to rise and will continue to rise.
As I see it, rates are nothing more nor less than a tax, and they are a tax which takes no account of ability to pay. Therefore, some relief should be granted by the central Government, and it should bear some relation to the increased expenditure which the central Government forces on the local authorities. I think it was for that, and perhaps for other reasons as well, that, so far as Scotland was concerned, the 1929 Act laid down that the block grant was not to fall below 25 per cent., afterwards reduced to 24.6 per cent., of the net rate and grant-borne expenditure. I think that proportion should be maintained. If it were, the result, so far as Scotland is concerned, would be that instead of receiving £5 million of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke, it would receive £7 million, which is a matter of considerable importance. Did the right hon. Gentleman consider that, or make any representations on the maintenance of that percentage of expenditure? If not, he has not fully kept in mind Scottish interests.
I turn to Part V of the Bill, which abolishes the payment of rates by both the Transport Commission and the Electricity Authority, and substitutes in the place of rates the payment of an annual lump sum which is to be pooled and distributed among the rating authorities in proportion to rateable value. I really do not know why these authorities should be absolved from the payment of

rates. I find it very difficult to understand. Yesterday the Minister suggested that it was one of the advantages of the Bill that it got rid of the complicated methods of valuation of these undertakings for rating purposes. I doubt if that is the real reason for the change. I think it is much more likely that the Government are rather fearful of the results which these nationalised undertakings are going to produce, and feel that they must be given every possible help. In that connection, I think it is a little significant, in so far as the railways are concerned, that the valuation for the quinquennium 1948–53, which forms the basis of the right hon. Gentleman's estimation, is considered by the local authorities to be far too low. I am told that it was only agreed to under protest, that it is a compromise figure, and that compromise figure which the local authorities consider to be far too low is now to be the standard for all time.
Perhaps there is another reason. If the Government alter the charges which have to be met by these nationalised undertakings, they would make it very difficult for comparisons as to their relative efficiency to be made in the future. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we shall insist on comparative figures being produced. I maintain that the whole principle in Part V of the Bill is wrong. I think it is wrong to exclude these undertakings from rating. It is wrong that the sums they are called upon to pay in lieu of rates should be pooled and distributed in proportion to rateable value. I cannot understand by what process of logic, payment out of that pool is going to be made to the Orkneys and Shetlands, where no railways exist. As long as local authorities are dependent upon rates from property as the main source of their income, it is wrong to deprive them of part of that source and distribute it to other local authorities. What is happening is that some of our great centres are going to subsidise areas which are perhaps even better off than they are themselves.
There is another matter which I would like cleared up by whoever is to reply to this Debate. It will be quite possible for the Transport Commission in the future to acquire additional property. They might acquire some large locomotive


works which are now in private ownership. On their acquiring those works, presumably rates would no longer be payable on that property. Yet I cannot find that there is any way by which the standard payment from the railways can be increased under the terms of the Bill. Of course, that might apply to properties of all kinds. It might apply to properties which the transport and electricity authorities require for the extension of their undertakings. I remember hearing—I have often heard—how much it was to the detriment of the local authorities when the telephones were transferred to the Post Office and they ceased to be subject to rates. I think the same thing may happen here. Such acquisitions of property by these authorities may well have most serious results on the finances of the local authorities. I hope the hon. Gentleman will clear up that point.
There is one other question to which I would like an answer. How much do the provisions of this Bill affect the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Undertaking? After all, we are very interested in that. On the success of that undertaking depends the regeneration of the Highlands and Islands. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that certain benefits were given to the hydroelectric undertakings by the Hydro-Electric Undertakings (Valuation for Rating) (Scotland) Act, 1945. It appears that these now disappear. Perhaps I can have a full reply later on, because under the terms of the Bill it would appear that these now disappear.

Mr. Woodburn: I think I explained that, but perhaps I did not make it quite clear. The whole of the North of Scotland scheme was isolated from the rest, and the contribution it made was distributed among the areas in the regions of the hydro-electric schemes.

Commander Galbraith: The right hon. Gentleman has not got my point. Perhaps I can put it another way. The real question is whether the sum to be paid by the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board for the benefit of local authorities is to be more or less than the payment based on the revenue principle as modified by the Act of 1945? If it is to be more, then the development of the Highlands will suffer, because the moneys which they pay away will be devoted to

local authority purposes and not to the purpose of the Hydro-Electric Board, which is the development of the Highlands—and they may not be one and the same thing.
In general, it seems to me that the provisions of Part V of the Bill strike at the heart of the whole rating system. I have no doubt at all of the good intentions of the Government, but I cannot but say that the Bill is a bad Bill which fails to achieve any real purpose other than the temporary reduction of the rates. It is not equalising any burdens; it is not removing disparities that exist at present in different areas; it takes no account of future expenditure; and it does not even fulfil the promises of the Government. From my point of view, the worst feature of all is that it does not seem to give equality or justice to Scotland. For that and other reasons my right hon. and hon. Friends who represent Scottish constituencies will support the Amendment and go into the Lobby against the Bill tonight.

443 p.m.

Mr. McKinlay: I want at the outset to associate myself with much that has been said in connection with the depositing of this Bill and the Memorandum. That is not a party question at all. I am not quite satisfied that I yet understand all the implications of the Bill, and I think that that goes even for right hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Front Bench.

Commander Galbraith: More than that.

Mr. McKinlay: It is a complicated Bill, and the time in which to study it has been short. Members of
local authorities more than ever depend upon the advice of their legal assistants and their financial officers. I do not believe that even the Secretary of State, or hon. Members who are concerned with local government, can dispense with officials to give them expert advice. There has been no time for any specialists to give any of us advice on the matter. I am not satisfied that we have learned much from our experience of what happened over the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929. Things did not pan out, on the rating aspect, according to the rosy picture painted at that time of how they would befall, and how Ministers wished us to believe they would befall. I am in a difficulty about the position of places such


as the city of Glasgow. Glasgow has a very valuable transport undertaking and a very valuable electricity undertaking. I hope that my right hon. Friend will excuse me if I cast some very grave doubts on the purpose of derating those undertakings.
All the things I am saying reinforce the attitude which, I think, nearly every Scottish Member, without consideration of party, feels towards the Measure that we are discussing, or towards the particular portion we are discussing at the moment. That portion ought to have been contained in a Bill drafted specially for Scotland. I will give one or two reasons why. This is a United Kingdom Bill. The Secretary of State for Scotland has opened the Debate today. I am thankful to those hon. Members representing English and Welsh constituencies who are gracing the Chamber with their presence now, on what is, to all intents and purposes, a Scottish occasion. The fact remains, however, that today's Debate is on something with which the whole of the Scottish rating system is tied up. I have a very high opinion of the capacity of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health in England. I think he is a very able young man. I understand that the reply to this Scottish argument is to be made by him. I do not envy him his task. I should like to give him my sympathy and my blessing beforehand. But I think I ought to ask why an English Minister will reply to this Debate.
There is no reason that I can see why the Scottish rating system could not have been overhauled while we were dealing with the proposals in this Measure. Interim grants could have been made to the Scottish local authorities until a satisfactory Measure was found. I never see my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) sitting complacently in the Opposition but my sense of humour is tickled. He knows the anomalies and stupidities of the Scottish rating system, and when he was Secretary of State for Scotland he had the opportunity of taking this thing and giving it a shake. It is so bristling with difficulties, however, and it has been permitted to grow to such appalling proportions, that no party opposite—nor, if I may say so without offence, no

party on this side—seems to be enthusiastic about tackling those problems. It would have very grave political implications.
All the propaganda for the revision of the Scottish rating system comes from hon. Gentlemen opposite and their supporters. It is said that we should transfer the burden of rating in Scotland from the owner and the occupier to the shoulders of the occupier alone. It is an awfully simple thing, is it not?—so simple that every Secretary of State for Scotland we have had has hesitated to do it, although this has been a burning problem since I was a laddie in my teens, which is a good while ago. Despite all the eloquence of Murray McGregor, the secretary of the Glasgow Property Owners' Association, despite the volume of evidence submitted on why the poor people were paying rates on rates instead of rates on rent only, political associates of hon. Members opposite when they had the opportunity, could not find a way of unscrambling this ungodly mess, and I do not propose to suggest that I know the way.
It has always appeared to me that the rating system in Scotland is a tax on people's respectability and not a tax on their ability to pay. If an artisan takes a house in a reasonably well-planned area and pays a reasonable rent, while a man who works across the bench from him, earning the same wages, prefers to live in a place which is not so well-planned and to pay a considerably lower rent, the fellow who moves to the better environment for the sake of his children is promptly taxed up to the hilt for doing so. I wish to focus some attention on this problem, because it hits every section of the community. I understand that a part of the Conservative Party platform is to give every person a stake in the country, and to let them become their own householders. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I agree; I think it is a very desirable thing that people should own their own homes. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] We all agree, but I hope I shall not be accused of trying to form a Coalition Government, in view of the applause from hon. Members opposite. The moment the man about whom I have been speaking—who is no better off financially than the person occupying a fairly decent rented house—assumes that


responsibility, up go his rates, and in some cases he has a combined rate which is within £4 or £5 of the rateable value of the place he inhabits. That is a ludicrous situation.
It has always been suggested—at least in local government in Scotland—that we on this side of the House are opposed to an alteration in the rating system. We are simply opposed to an alteration at the moment because no one has yet submitted a system which would safeguard the interests of the occupiers carrying an accumulation of debt created by people who lived generations ago. I must, therefore, express my regret that this was not made the occasion for tackling the whole rating system. I do not know that the English system is a very desirable one either. In the building industry they speak about the "rule of thumb," but judging from some of the valuations I have seen in England I have the impression that the valuers do not even take the trouble to apply their thumbs. It is a hocus-pocus which has no real basis, and it has been further complicated by that "phoney" Measure of 1929 which derated industrial subjects.
Hon. and right hon. Members opposite say that if ever we were flapping our wings towards industrial success, it was when the burden of rates was removed from the Clydeside industries and relief given to shipbuilders. The shipyards remained empty, of course, but even when they were full, the cumulative gift to shipbuilders was a very considerable sum of money, amounting to one-sixteenth part of 1d. per ton on the ships they were building. Apparently, they were able to estimate the cost of building a ship with such accuracy that one-sixteenth part of 1d. per ton made all the difference between a ship being built and a ship not being built. Here, if I read the Bill aright, in derating the electricity and transport undertakings which are taken
over we are falling into the same error. I am satisfied in my own mind that Scottish cities which have such valuable undertakings will not, ultimately, get a square deal in this respect.
I should like to say a few words about a statement made yesterday by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). He seems to have been on a Government delegation to Scotland, and in three days has apparently gathered

more information than I could gather with 13 years' membership of the Glasgow Town Council. By some peculiar mode of measurement, he makes the amazing assertion that the standard of honesty—because that is what it amounts to—of members of local authorities in England is considerably higher than it is in Scotland. I ask the hon. Member to bear in mind that when talking about men and women who serve on local authorities he is not talking of something like a particular brand of whisky.
The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton goes even further in advertising his ignorance by calling in question the expenditure of the Common Good Fund in Scotland. I know that if men of the same mental attitude as the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton had their way, any surplus from the trading departments of municipalities would be used to reduce the rates. In Glasgow, the place I know best, we never made any profit from the gas undertaking; we supplied gas to the people on the basis of what it cost to produce, and met all the capital charges—and the same applied to the electricity department. If the accountancy methods of the transport department had been those of the Scottish Motor Traction Company they would have shown a very handsome profit, but when we had a surplus it went, into the Common Good. The source of the Common Good at the moment is, in the main, Kelvin Hall. Indeed, there were more enlightened Tories on the Glasgow Town Council than found their way to the Palace of Westminster, because it was a Tory council which built the Kelvin Hall; it was a Tory council which municipalised the trams, the water supply, and the gas and electricity supplies.

Sir W. Darling: And the Socialist Government took them away.

Mr. McKinlay: They have not taken those services away.

Sir W. Darling: Gas and electricity.

Mr. McKinlay: They would do far more good if, by some happy chance, they could take away the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) from the representation of his constituency.

Sir W. Darling: My constituents would have something to say about that.

Mr. McKinlay: The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton spoke of the free luncheons and the afternoon tea bill. If I recollect aright, when in Glasgow that delegation, of which he was a member, accepted the hospitality of the Glasgow Corporation. Do not let us get this thing mixed up.

Sir W. Darling: No.

Mr. McKinlay: The hon. Member has been so mixed up and confused since he was in short pants, that heaven knows where he will be before he is finished. It is proposed that because there is an allowance for loss of time, this "corruption" of the midday meal should cease. I would point out that the active members of the Glasgow Corporation usually start their committee work not later than 12 noon, and are fortunate if they finish by 4.30 p.m. That happens every day of the week, except Saturdays. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton will say, "Let them pay for their lunch "; but these men and women have in some cases been giving 16 hours a day service for nothing. I hope that the same thing will not happen in the case of Glasgow as happened in the case of one English city, which an official deputation of four had been appointed to visit. They were told by the city architect that he could not offer them hospitality because his council had passed an economy resolution. Glasgow has always been famous for its generosity, and I hope that that will continue. The money does not come from the rates, but from the Common Good Fund. I can only assume that the hon. Member was talking out of his turn, and that he knew absolutely nothing about the subject. It is suggested that an allowance should be given to provosts. The Glasgow Provost expenditure is paid out of the Common Good—I do not know whether it is a rating charge in the case of Edinburgh. Why should it not be a rating charge? If it is the intention of the Bill to make an allowance for the expenses of provosts and conveners, I can see no objections.
I conclude by expressing my regret that there is not a separate Bill to deal with the separate and different problems of Scotland. I have heard many times the claim being made by hon. Members opposite that Scotland is being neglected. It is all part and parcel of a very well organised campaign, but I think that there is some justification for the claim on this

occasion. It is unfair to England, and to us, not to have separate Bills. This is a very difficult subject, and no Member can claim to have grasped fully all its implications. Just as in the case of the Town and Country Planning Act, which came before the Scottish Grand Committee and received a very thorough examination, so this Bill would have received a more thorough examination from the point of view of Scotland had it been dealt with in the Scottish Grand Committee as a separate Measure. Without regard to party, Scottish Members regard the Scottish Grand Committee as the place to meet and hammer out to the best of their ability all Bills affecting the country north of the Tweed. I can assure the representatives of Scotland who sit on the Front Bench that they have the sympathy of Scottish Members, and that we shall not be too tough about it if they make a good job of it. As I say, it is unfair to the Secretary of State for Scotland and to the two Under-Secretaries that we should not have a separate Bill for Scotland. I am satisfied that this mistake will not be repeated in the future.

5.5 p.m.

Sir William Darling: I would endorse the wisdom and practical commonsense of the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay). I should like to say that his views regarding the importance of this Bill, and of having a separate Scottish Bill are shared by a great number of people. I look at the Bill, and I find that it applies to England, Wales, Scotland and to the Scilly Isles. It seems to me that such a comprehensive range is quite unwarranted. This attempt to embody Scotland, England, Wales and the Scilly Isles into one Bill is an outrage—I use the word advisedly—to public sentiment in Scotland. It is a matter of great disappointment to us. Stress has been laid during many years—and I noticed that the chairman of the Scottish Convention was present a few moments ago—on the importance of Scottish devolution. Those views have been shared on all sides of the House. If ever there was a case for Scottish devolution, I think it is here.
We have not only a different race, different people and even a different language, but we have a different system of valuation, and that is not met by the


25 per cent. advance upon the English figures. I noticed that there are four very short Clauses, Clauses 16, 31, 68 and 79, all of which say:
This part of this Act shall not extend to Scotland.
I do not think Scotland will like this presentation of what is a very important matter. I look at this Bill from the point of view of one who has been associated with local authority work and has had much pleasure in that association. I ask myself: What have we lost, and what have we gained? I ask myself what this Bill is taking away, and I find that we lose three things. Under the 1929 Act, we had compensation for derating. I do not agree with the disparaging remarks made by the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire about that Act. It was not for shipbuilding, but for the community who conducted shipbuilding. They had the advantages of derating—[Laughter.] Unquestionably the rates would have been higher had no derating been made possible. If hon. Members are uninformed on the matter, there are many short, lucid handbooks on the subject of local authorities which I can commend to them. As I was saying, we have lost three things. We lose compensation for derating. I take it that the Minister is aware of the amount the local authorities will lose each year. The compensation for derating works out at £3¼ million. Scotland will also lose the minimum grant, which was equal to loss in rates, plus 1s. per head, and the States obligation, as local authority expenditure rose or fell, to increase or decrease by approximately 25 per cent. from the national pool from which block grants are made.
I have had some discussion by telephone and some correspondence on this Bill. I would endorse what has been said, that the time for consultation has been very limited—and I enjoin the Minister to remember that the complexion of local authorities at the last election has been changed in Scotland as well as in England. The local authorities have all objected to the shortness of time and to the consultations, which have been in the nature of a minister preaching to a congregation, rather than the sort of consultation one expects with freely elected and independent authorities and a Minister consulting them regarding a Measure greatly affecting the interests of their communities.
We object to this Bill because in Scotland it discontinues the existing block grant, and gives nothing to compensate for the loss through derating. We object because it eliminates the guarantee of the minimum grant to the local authorities, and also because it takes away the road maintenance grant—a point which has not been mentioned yet, I believe, and which is very important. Among the local authorities from which this grant is taken away are the great second city of the Empire, Glasgow, and the capital of Scotland, Edinburgh. Edinburgh and Glasgow are to get no grant at all for their roads, yet in 1947 Edinburgh collected motor licence revenues to the total of £433,408—almost half a million pounds. Not one penny of that reaches Edinburgh for the maintenance of her roads. I should think that the figure for Glasgow was much higher, probably in the neighbourhood of £650,000. All that money is collected in Glasgow, is passed out, and not one penny goes back to that city. The roads in both these great cities are maintained entirely from the rates. That is what we are losing by this Bill.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: It goes back in another way.

Sir W. Darling: It does not go back in any way in the form of road grants. That is a deprivation in the neighbourhood of £500,000 for the City of Edinburgh. The Government's case is that they are transferring health and poor services from the responsibility of the local authorities. Edinburgh gets 4d. extra for education, and Glasgow gets 4s. I mention this to show how the Government's arithmetic works. They are removing from us responsibility for health and poor services, and giving us 4d. extra for education in Edinburgh and 4s. for Glasgow. What do we lose? A very great deal. Thrown back to the local authorities are the fire services. The fire service, when it left Edinburgh, was simple, effective, economic, useful, and well organised. Now it comes back bloated, costly, and almost beyond our means—

Mr. Woodburn: Where does the hon. Gentleman get his figures of 4d. for Edinburgh and 4s. for Glasgow, for education? Does he get those figures from the Bill?

Sir W. Darling: The transfer grant is 4d. for Edinburgh and 4s. for Glasgow.


I will give the right hon. Gentleman my authority privately; the figure was
worked out for me by someone interested in this business, and if it is not right I ask the right hon. Gentleman to contradict it. It is your business to defend the Bill against the misapprehensions, errors, blasphemies, and faults of its critics—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): The hon. Member is now blaming me for something which has nothing to do with me.

Sir W. Darling: It is an unfortunate case of wrong identification, Sir. I confused the bland urbanity of the Secretary of State with your own distinguished attitude.
What do we get from this Bill? We get a costlier fire service. That is bad enough, but what about our administrative losses? The Government are removing from local authorities their health and poor services and, soon, their transport, gas, and electricity services. Local authorities are not hypothetical ratepayers, as the Minister of Health said humorously yesterday. They are large business entities, and if the Government take away from them these important aspects of their activity, they will throw upon them much costlier overheads for those things which remain. They bear part of the cost of the central administration. In Scotland, they bear part of the heavy cost of the town clerk's department, the secretarial side, and the engineer's and architect's departments. Now these are to be borne entirely by the ratepayers' truncated revenues. That is a loss which, in these days, when staffs cannot be easily dispensed with, will grow during the time in which this Bill will operate.
I now come to Clause 19, which defines the standard rateable value per head of the weighted population. What does this mean? It means that in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Peeblesshire, and the Isle of Bute they will get nothing. I do not think the Secretary of State for Scotland will challenge that. It means that 31.7 per cent. of the population of Scotland will get no grant, that 1,635,688 hypothetical ratepayers will pay for a grant for others and get nothing for themselves—

Mr. Scollan: That is hypothetical.

Sir W. Darling: Is this the "fair shares for all," in regard to which I was given a very serious promise by the Government at the General Election? This Clause is based on a fallacy. Rateable value, it is claimed, is the sole criterion of wealth. Areas may be poor, but all the people in those areas are not themselves necessarily poor. I will give two examples. I have in mind a dog track in the constituency of the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge (Mrs. Mann), and another one in Airdrie. The owners of these tracks make equal profits with the Edinburgh or Glasgow tracks, but they get infinitely better treatment as ratepayers. They get a more advantageous grant from the Bill than Edinburgh or Glasgow. It is the poor area, so-called, which has the advantages. There is another glaring example. A bank in a poor area costs less to run than it does if situated in a wealthier area—

Mr. Woodburn: When the hon. Member says that the Coatbridge dog track gets the benefit of a cheaper rate than the one in Edinburgh, would he give us the rates in these two places? Surely, the track in Edinburgh gets the cheapest rates in the whole of Scotland?

Sir W. Darling: The effect of the grant will be that there will be nothing for the benefit of the dog track proprietors in Edinburgh, but that there will be advantages for those in Coatbridge. That is the arithmetic of this Bill. If that statement is contradicted, then the whole theory of the Bill, which says that it is to help the poorer areas, is destroyed. There is a further point. There are public employees on nation-wide salaries and wages. Police and teachers' wages are subsidised when they are in the so-called poorer areas. They have the advantage of the lower rating which comes to them, while enjoying a national scale of wages and salaries which obtains throughout the whole country.
But there is more in Clause 19. The Airdrie Town Council owns 50 per cent. of its houses, Clydebank 30 per cent. and Hamilton 47 per cent. The present proposals seem to mean that the local authority which lets houses at a low rate will benefit by having more rating subsidy. In other words, the valuation is in the hands of those who will benefit at the expense of others who get no block grant


at all. There is a lot of misunderstanding about this question of rates. I would like to quote in this connection something which I think is very pertinent. Mr. D. J. Parry, the retiring President of the National Association of Local Government Officers' states:
The incidence of local rates is not so heavy as may be thought. Last year, as the Government have told us, the aggregate income of the people of Britain was £8,444,000,000, an increase of 74 per cent. on the figure for 1938, and personal expenditure on goods and services totalled £6,584,000, an increase of 55 per cent. above the 1938 figure. But in the same period the amount collected in rates increased by only 22 per cent. to £259 million—considerably less than half the amount we spent on beer and spirits, less than half what we spent on tobacco, and not a great deal more than we spent on entertainment.
So, much of the argument against the burden of rates is baseless. The incidence of rates is not so heavy as the primary luxuries of the people of this country—entertainment, wines and spirits and tobacco. It seems to me that there has been exaggeration of the importance of this rating question.

Clause 21 deals with transitional grants for the first five years. I made a balance sheet, and on one side I find what we got in block grants the grant received for education and the product of a 4⅘ pence rate. On the other side, I find savings through hospitals and poor law, the sum payable under the new education grant 1948–49, and the Exchequer equalisation grant. If the balance sheet shows a loss in five years that loss will have to be met by the local authorities entirely and the transitional grant does not seem to help in any way. Let us look at the effect. In Westminster—the figures which I am about to give may be challenged, but I understand that they are correct—the rateable value is £134 per head. In Edinburgh it is £14. Westminster under this Bill will save 1s. 6d. in the pound, the City of London 1s. 10d., Marylebone 1s. 5d. and Holborn 1s. 7d. But there may be some readjustment, so we were told, with regard to London. Bournemouth get 1s. 7d. relief, Brighton, 1s. 5d. and Eastbourne 1s. 5d. I think that that kind of arithmetic disposes of the theory put forward by the promoters of this Bill that it is going to do anything towards equalising and adjusting the anomalies existing in our rating system.

I oppose this Bill because it aims at equalising the rate burden. What causes the inequality in rates? There are many causes, but there is one which is never mentioned. The inequality of rates of this country is as much caused by extravagant and incompetent local administration as by any other cause. It is not caused by poverty. To quote Edinburgh again, in Cmd. Paper 7256 it will be seen that the rates of the City of Edinburgh—and this is my point that the inequality in rates is not due to poverty but due to extravagant and incompetent administration—for the last 15 years have ranged from 7s. 11d. to 8s. 3d. There have been wars and changes of Government during those last 15 years, but the City of Edinburgh has maintained, because of careful and competent administration, a rate burden of 7s. 11d. to 8s. 3d. Few other cities have done the same. I submit that most other cities and many other counties could have done the same.

Mr. Scollan: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how the administration of the City of Glasgow in the Govan area has had rates in the past 2s. to 3s. higher than the rates in the Pollok area administered by the same authority?

Sir W. Darling: I will not go into that differentiation because it is not relevant to this argument.

Mr. Scollan: I am trying to understand the hon. Gentleman's point that bad administration is responsible for higher rates in one locality than in another. How does he account for the same administration having higher rates in one part of the city and lower rates in another part?

Sir W. Darling: If the hon. Gentleman is anxious for enlightenment on this subject, I would advise him to examine the accounts of the City of Edinburgh for the last 15 years, and ask himself how it is possible for the City of Edinburgh to hold its rate burden at 7s. 11d. to 8s. 3d. when the men of Glasgow—of a different political complexion for the most part—have not been able to achieve anything like that. Then he will arrive at my conclusion that this inequality of rates is not due to the much trumpeted argument of poverty, but to the quality of the administration of the local authority. The long record of the successful business


administration of the City of Edinburgh is now being penalised under this Bill. Economy has been declared to be a crime and good administration has been made a mockery. These views are reinforced by a number of messages which I have received. I have a telegram from the City Treasurer of Edinburgh, which states:
Financial proposals in the Local Government Bill do not commend themselves to Edinburgh. The transitional grants shown will be cut each year and will disappear altogether at the end of five years—Miller, City Treasurer.
This is a blow at local government. The Minister of Health does not like local government. He is by temperament a centraliser, and I can imagine that he would want to leave Wales and never go back to it and manage Wales from afar. He prefers to govern Wales, not in Wales, but from Whitehall. The Minister of Food has much the same view. He is also an instrument of central government policy. The elections, however, have shown that this view is
not held by the ratepayers generally, either in Dundee or Wales. The idea used to be "Trust the people." I think that the Government fear the people because they desire to get as far away from them as possible.
I conclude by asking: What do we want? We want compensation for derating; we want a minimum grant for all local authorities; we want the benefits of the Bill extended to all local authorities, and a grant which takes into account the burden as well as the rateable value of all local authorities; we want a new source of revenue promised by the Chancellor as an accompaniment to these new proposals, we want a proper estimate made of savings—not only health and Poor Law—over the whole field of savings; and we want no reduction of the transitional grant at the expiry of five years. These are the minimum demands. If they are not granted, in the opinion of many who are in local government in Scotland and elsewhere this Socialist Government will go down to history as having struck a blow against that local government system which is the pride of our country.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: So far from this Bill being a blow to local government as the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) ha3 suggested

in that extravagant and irresponsible language in which we are accustomed to hear him indulge in this House, this Bill is a bold, generous and imaginative gesture to the local authorities on the part of the Minister of Health and of His Majesty's Government. In the very short space of time available to me, I do not propose to allow myself to digress to deal with the arguments raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh. I prefer, as the Minister advised us in his most eloquent Second Reading speech dealing with this most complicated matter, to confine myself to the principles of the Bill. I agree with what "The Times" says in its leading article this morning:
The Bill prepares the way for a new and perhaps lasting financial partnership between central and local authorities.
If I may say a word about the essential principles of the Bill, it abolishes the old block grants system which was full of anomalies and inconsistencies and which was based on assumptions and calculations which are out of date.

Mr. Scollan: On a point of Order. Are we to understand that Part II of the Bill, which is the Scottish part, is now finished and we are back again on to the Bill proper?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman the Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) is in Order. We are now dealing with the Bill as a whole.

Mr. Scollan: Including Part II?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We are dealing with the Bill as a whole.

Mr. Fletcher: I am dealing with the principles of the Bill which have common application to England, Scotland and Wales.

Mr. Scollan: That is a mistake on the part of my hon. Friend. The problem in England and Wales is entirely different from that in Scotland, and that was the Part of the Bill we were discussing before my hon. Friend the Member for East Islington came in.

Mr. Fletcher: My hon. Friends who represent Scottish constituencies will no doubt have ample opportunities when this Bill is considered in Committee to raise a great many Committee points. I think one criticism that might be made of this Second Reading Debate is that we have


rather lost sight of the principles of the Bill in dealing with questions of detail and Committee points.

Mr. Scollan: On a point of Order. Are we to understand from that remark that the Scottish Part is going to be remitted to the Scottish Grand Committee?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I did not hear the remark of the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Islington, but he alone is responsible for it.

Mr. Scollan: It should go to the Scottish Grand Committee, whether it does or not.

Mr. Fletcher: I was saying that there are undoubtedly a great many points in a complicated Bill of this kind which can be raised and will be raised in the Committee stage. We are now nearing the conclusion of the Second Reading stage, and I want to address myself to the Amendment which has been put down by hon. Members of the Opposition. I am sorry to see that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Col. Elliot) is not in his place, but I understand he is coming back. The burden of the criticism of the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) was that he had not time to study it, but I observe that hon. Members opposite thought fit to put down on the Order Paper several days ago what is politely described as a reasoned Amendment. I have not heard many arguments in this Debate in support of that so-called reasoned Amendment. I doubt if many hon. Members who will go into the Lobby to vote for it have studied it, but it is full of contradictions and has not been supported by argument.
In one part of the Amendment hon. Gentlemen opposite object to this Bill because it establishes no direct relation between local expenditure and Exchequer assistance. But that is the very thing it does do. Under the new basis of equalisation grants, instead of there being a fixed and maximum limit to be calculated every five years and then divided amongst the local authorities, there will in future be no maximum to the contribution to be made by the Exchequer to local authorities. The Exchequer contribution will vary in direct ratio to the amount of the rates levied by every local authority that

is eligible for an Exchequer grant. Therefore, there will be a very direct relationship, and there will be this additional advantage that, instead of the calculation being anything up to five years out of date, it will be freshly calculated year by year.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities criticised the new equalisation grant on the ground that it was not based on known factors. That is the very thing it is. It is flexible in its operation and will be adjusted yearly. Another noteworthy merit of the new equalisation grant system is that although it provides more generous treatment for local authorities, it does not increase in any way the measure of control exercised by any central Government over local authorities. Hon. Members opposite, and indeed some of my hon. Friends on this side of the House, have in their criticisms found themselves in a dilemma. I am not referring to those hon. Members representing constituencies with particular interests, who complain that for some special reason their constituency does not come off as well under the new proposals as they think it should. If there are real anomalies they can be dealt with in Committee. But the dilemma is this. Hon. Members opposite cannot have it both ways. They cannot ask both for greater financial assistance from the Exchequer and also, at the same time, greater freedom from central control.

Mr. Sidney Marshall: Does the hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) mean to infer that in this Bill the local authorities are not interfered with?

Mr. Fletcher: The powers, independence and discretion of local authorities are not interfered with in any way by this Bill.

Mr. Marshall: What about the valuation duties?

Mr. Fletcher: Subject, of course, to the fact that the duty of preparing valuation lists is in future transferred to valuation officers.

Mr. Marshall: Is not that interference?

Mr. Fletcher: That is not a social service; it is a purely technical function. The right to fix the value on which rates are paid is not a social service. It is a


measure of taxation, and if we are going to have, as this Bill confers, a much greater measure of equality in rate burdens—if we are going to iron out the discrepancies between richer and poorer areas and have greater equality and justice in local government rate's as a result of increased Exchequer grants, then it follows as an inevitable corollary that we must have a national system of valuation. Otherwise every local authority would be tempted to under-value property in its area in order to attract greater benefits from the Exchequer. Therefore, I do not think anybody who is seriously interested in the provision of social services would complain that this Bill detracts from the essential rights and powers of local authorities. On the contrary, it establishes the principle whereby they get more grants with no additional interference.
On that subject may I say that the real problem in local government today—and it is a matter not touched by this Bill or by any Bill, because it is a matter of administration—is to strike the right balance between the control which must necessarily be exercised by the Exchequer, living as we do in a society which regards social service as a national obligation and which imposes national standards or at any rate national minimum standards to be adopted by local authorities, and the powers, independence, enterprise and discretion of the local authority. I hope that under this or any other Bill this essential feature of the problem will receive continuous attention from His Majesty's Government and all local authority members and their executives. And it cuts both ways. Whitehall interference, which is quite rightly exercised when Government grants are involved, may make for economy and restrain extravagance. At other times, by reason of unnecessarily high standards being prescribed, it actually threatens or prevents desirable economies which local authorities would wish.
Perhaps I might sum up my remarks by saying that I regard the Bill as a further stage in the advance of local government in this country. After all, the success of local government in this country depends on its ability continually to adapt itself to changing requirements of our social and economic conditions. I would not regard rating as we know it as the ideal

basis of local revenue or adjustment of local tax burdens. I hope that when the central valuation procedure gets going and when we have nationally operating valuation machinery, the valuation officers will be encouraged to consider the proposals which have been put forward from time to time for a more equitable basis of raising local revenue. I hope that the Government will not lose sight, for example, of the promise which was made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer about a year ago that local authorities would be given discretionary powers for the rating of site values. I know that that is something which cannot be introduced at this stage by means of the provisions of the Bill. Finally, the Bill marks another stage in the advance of local government, and I believe that it will provide a further stimulus for fruitful local effort and the exercise of local discretion and imagination. I do not believe that it will stem the springs of municipal enterprise. I welcome the Bill and congratulate the Government upon having introduced it.

5.42 p.m.

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: The hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) observed that nobody on this side of the House had addressed himself to the subject matter of the Amendment which we have tabled. It is my hope and possibly even my anticipation to substantiate the Amendment in detail. Perhaps he will forgive me if I do not deal with the point which he raised in regard to the direct relationship existing between the Exchequer and the local authorities until I come to that point in my argument as a whole.
I should like to point out—if indeed it needs any pointing out because, from the speeches of my hon. Friends in the Debate, I think it is clear—that we criticise the Bill not in any spirit of complacent acquiescence with things as they are, and not in any diehard aversion to reform as such. Quite the contrary is clearly the case from the speeches to which we have listened. We are prepared to agree that there is need for a Bill, but it does not follow that the Bill before us is the Bill for which there is need. I recall the analogous case of the Measure which is now the Town and Country Planning Act, towards which our attitude was almost exactly the same. We then appreciated


the necessity for a comprehensive code of town and country planning, but we did not think that such a code was embodied in the Bill then presented to us.
In regard to rating, we recognise the necessity of a Measure for revising the current system, but we place on record our view that the Bill as it stands is not the Measure which is required. Both the Measures to which I have referred were long and complex. The right hon. Gentleman said that he hoped we could approach the Bill in a spirit of constructive co-operation. I am sure we can, but I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that co-operation must be a two-way traffic. It follows from that that the unhappy precedent of the Town and Country Planning Bill must not be invoked and £he proceedings repeatedly guillotined, because that is destructive of the best forms of co-operation.
The right hon. Gentleman expressed himself with characteristically scathing contempt in regard to our Amendment. Speaking yesterday afternoon he said that the Opposition had not been able to find any good reasons for opposing the Bill. If he listened to the speeches made by his own hon. Friends behind him in the Debate it will now be clear to him that every criticism put forward in our Amendment has been reinforced by their criticism on precisely the same points. I do not suggest that any hon. Member made all the points contained in the Opposition Amendment, but that every point made in the Amendment was made in one speech or another from the Benches opposite. We can therefore hope that the right hon. Gentleman, who is not usually given to listening to us, may perhaps listen more to the counsel of those who sit behind him. It is true that a large number of hon. Members opposite gave a general blessing to the Bill, although certain provisions of it came in for their strong criticism. Listening carefully to their speeches it seemed to me that the general blessing was given by way of perfunctory party ritual whereas the passages of criticism obviously came from heart and head. Those are therefore the passages to which the House should pay most attention. Some of those passages I propose to quote to the House in a minute or two.
The right hon. Gentleman has suggested that, upon the Second Reading, we should

confine our arguments, as in propriety we should, to the general principles of the Bill. I consider that there are two main basic requirements for any radical revision of rating law. The first of them is that a right relation should be established, not only between one local authority area and another, which is what the right hon. Gentleman believes, but, still more important, that a right relationship should be established between the central government and the local authorities. That is the first basic, inescapable requirement of any satisfactory Measure of rating reform today. The second main requirement is that it should improve the existing rating and valuation machinery, particularly in regard to the attainment of a degree of uniformity in valuation. Those two main requirements should be met by the Bill.
It is said that these two requirements cannot be achieved simultaneously. It may well be that that is so. If it is so, it is clear that the second of those requirements, of machinery giving uniformity in valuation, must precede the first. Whether or not that is true in general principle, it is certainly true in the case of the method which the right hon. Gentleman has chosen and which for convenience I shall call the sheep-and-goats method. It is a method of dividing the non-receiving areas from the receiving areas by the criterion of whether they come above or below the national average of rateable value per head of the weighted population. This "sheep and goats "method which has commended itself to the right hon. Gentleman can only be scientifically planned and equitably applied on a basis of uniform valuation. I hope I have taken the House with me thus far in my argument.
What, in effect, the Minister has done in the framing of his proposals is to put the cart of the equalisation grant before the horse of uniform valuation. The results of that cannot be exaggerated when we are considering this Bill because it is that inversion of the logical and proper process which has vitiated these proposals. That is the central, vital, inescapable defect of this Bill, and attention is drawn to it in the Amendment which we have tabled and which the right hon. Gentleman has criticised as being irrelevant and misconceived. It says:


… presupposes uniformity of valuation which, owing to the unsuitable machinery provided, cannot be achieved for at least four years.
There is that central defect of the Bill pricked and pinpointed in the Amendment we have tabled. What are the effects of this inversion of the logical and proper processes in regard to the attack on this great problem of rating? The main effects are two. First of all, there is the obvious effect that, with the Bill as it now is, equalisation grants may, and in fact will be, paid to some of the less deserving authorities. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Mr. Medland) in his place, because he put this point with becoming clarity and blunt-ness as one who sits for a constituency with such naval associations. The hon. Member said:
I mean that some districts are under-assessed, and deliberately under-assessed, and under this equalisation the under-assessed areas are going to get the biggest amount of equalising grant. Because of the deliberate under-assessment, there are all these variations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th November, 1947; Vol. 444, c. 1096.]
There, in very blunt language, is his point. Therefore, we come to this conclusion: that the authorities receiving the equalisation grants who are listed in. Table II of the White Paper may, in some cases, be the wrong authorities to receive those grants, and those who are listed in the White Paper as not receiving the grant may, in some cases, be penalised because they have practised virtue in their methods of assessment and valuation. That is a clear and obvious defect of these proposals which has arisen from the inversion of the logical order in securing uniformity of valuation and applying the principles of rating reform.
The second defect is this: that because these proposals are founded on a method of valuation which has not yet come into operation, the Minister has been planning in the dark, and this has had the effect of complicating the bargain which he has had to strike with the Treasury. We who sit in this House are not children, and we know that when a long, complex Bill of this sort comes to the House it has behind it a long history of departmental bargaining between the Department concerned and the Treasury. In this case the Minister has obviously not been able to give to the Treasury the

precise financial implications of basing an Exchequer grant on rateable value. He has been unable to give them that information because the machinery for assessing that rateable value is not yet in operation. So he can give them no long-term indication; and because he has put himself in that tactically disadvantageous position, the Treasury have driven a very hard bargain with him. He pretends to this House that it is not so, but it is so. The Treasury have driven a hard bargain with him, and as a result of that hard bargain instead of the local authorities receiving Exchequer grants, as was the case under the old block grant scheme, only some authorities will now receive any Exchequer grant at all.
We can measure the effect of this hard bargain, and we can measure it in hard cash. We can compare the sum that will be received in Exchequer grants on the basis of the figures under the new system and under the old. Under the new system £33 million will be received and under the old system £43 million. Here again the point has not escaped the attention and vigilance of some hon. Members opposite. The hon. Member for West Woolwich (Mr. Berry), who has a long experience of local government affairs, took this point in his speech yesterday when he said:
I am bound to say, there is every likelihood of there being a deficiency of £10 million on what local authorities would have got over what they will get, and I hope the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary will give this matter very careful consideration."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th November, 1947; Vol. 444, c. 1084.]
We get a similar result if we view the matter from the angle of savings to the ratepayers. We are told that these are to be £39 million; but as against that we have to put the known increases in expenditure and the presently undefined, but inevitable, increases in expenditure as well. So far as the known increases in expenditure are concerned the figures were given yesterday by my right hon. Friend: £12 million in respect of the Fire Service and £30 million in respect of the Education Act. That in itself is over £39 million: it amounts to £42 million. But to that figure has to be added the increase in unknown and undefined expenditure, because the costs of local administration are rising owing to the inflationary trend which this Government has not yet had the courage to check. That must be


added before we can see the actual effect which this arrangement will have on local authority finances.
The inversion of what I called "the logical processes in attacking this problem" has involved inequity as between different areas and it has involved a bad bargain for local authorities generally as against the Treasury. It follows that the much trumpeted financial advantages are illusory. That brings me to the question of expenditure and rates. Here again, our criticised Amendment deals with this vital aspect of the problem. It says:
… declines to give a second reading to a Bill which fails to achieve those objects, inasmuch as it provides no adequate means to deal with the continued rise of rates due to the ever-increasing expenditure which local authorities are required to undertake; establishes no direct relation between local expenditure and Exchequer assistance, and by the inadequacy of the proposed equalisation grants deprives many authorities of this type of Exchequer assistance altogether.
I should make it clear which parts of this Amendment apply to all areas and which parts of it apply only to those areas above the national average of rateable value per head. It is unfortunately a complication that it should be so, but that is due to the discriminatory policy of His Majesty's Government. That passage of our Amendment which deals with the rise of rates and there being no adequate means to restrain them, applies to all local authorities.

Mr. E. Fletcher: Is the hon. Member arguing that he is opposed to an increase in rates, and would he say whether he is opposed to the proposed provisions for education and fire services?

Mr. Walker-Smith: The hon. Member does himself less than justice. Quite obviously he must know from his experience in other places that my argument did not tend in that direction at all. What I am saying is that this Measure has been commended, not only to this House but to the people of the country, because it will involve a fall in rates. What else is the significance of the colmun in Table 2 of the White Paper if that is not it? And how true is it? That is the question which we in this House must ask ourselves and for which were are answerable to those whom we represent in this place.
Surely the case is this: expenditure will obviously arise for the reasons I gave a

minute or two ago, both in known and in unknown dimensions. So far as those authorities are concerned which will get nothing by way of Exchequer grant under the new proposals, it is quite clear that the only way they can meet the expenditure is by raising their rates. That argument is crystal clear even to the hon. Member for East Islington in his more disingenuous moments. What about those who will receive the grants? It is true in a sense of course—and the right hon. Gentleman made as much as he could of this point yesterday—that these grants are related to expenditure because the Exchequer becomes a deficit ratepayer in respect of the amount by which these areas fall below the national average. But these grants are based on rateable values. Therefore their effect will only be to see that the rates in those cases do not rise more proportionately than the rates in the areas above the national average.
In other words, the effect of these proposals is to see, for example, that the rates will not rise more in Durham than in Surrey, but the effects of the proposals are not to see that the rates will not rise both in Durham and in Surrey, which they very probably will. It is because this Bill is based on the principle of the equalisation of burdens and not on their alleviation. Let me put it like this: the lift of rates is going up; it is likely to go up all over the country. The Bill is designed to see that the lift does not go up for some and not for others; but it is poor consolation to know that you are all in the same lift going up, when where you want to be is in a lift going down. That is the position we have under these much vaunted proposals.
I see the Parliamentary Secretary wearing a worried, or is it merely a furrowed expression? Let me put this in clear language. I challenge him, when he replies, to say whether or not in his view rates are likely to rise. I challenge him to say whether or not this Bill provides adequate means to restrain any such rise in rates. I challenge him to deny that the rate reliefs proudly proclaimed in the White Paper and by his right hon. Friend yesterday—whose absence from the House at the moment I deplore—are unreal because they refer to a period which is past. I challenge him to deny that these rate reliefs are transitory and fortuitious, arising as they do, in so far


as they do arise, out of the provisions of other legislation not connected with this Bill at all.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. John Edwards): Will the hon. Member tell us how he would deal with the problem of rising rates unless he proposes a 100 per cent. grant of additional expenditure? How would he do it?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I am coming on to that. I am obliged to the hon. Member, but I am quite capable of pursuing a logical argument in a logical form, and I will continue, if I may, so to do. First, I will redeem my promise of substantiating my propositions by quotations from the speeches made by hon. Members opposite. Here again the hon. Member for West Woolwich said yesterday:
While there may be an immediate benefit with regard to rates, we must take a long view and consider certain expanding duties which are cast upon local authorities."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th November, 1947; Vol. 444, c. 1084.]
Then he goes on to agree with the general observations which I have directed to the House under this head. I want to say a word about that part of the Amendment which was criticised by the hon. Member for East Islington dealing with the relationship between the Exchequer and the local authorities. By a fortunate coincidence, I think this was the very point on to which the hon. Member was attempting to lure me just now. The relationship between local authorities and the Exchequer assistance has certain clear points in spite of the skill with which the right hon. Gentleman yesterday tried to obscure it. For a great many areas in this country the essential fact is that whereas formerly they were receiving an Exchequer grant by way of what is called free money—which, as hon. Members know, means money received from the Exchequer without the obligation of detailed central supervision—now they are receiving none. Whatever the right hon. Gentleman may say, that, at any rate to the people who live in those parts of the country, is a matter of great and insurmountable importance.
All that they are now to get is a contemptuous consolation prize in some cases, by way of a transitional grant for a period of five years only. The right hon. Gentleman suggests that these areas have not

suffered, and he suggests that those who say that they have suffered are guilty of displaced terminology. Well, there are certain hon. Members sitting on the benches opposite who represent these places and they will have to go down to their constituencies and explain that whereas under the existing law they receive Exchequer grants, under the new law they will not. When they are told, "But this hurts us," hon. Members will say, "No," and when they are asked, "Why not?", they will reply, "Because it is a question of displaced terminology." The constituents of hon. Members opposite are likely to tell them, "These idiosyncrasies of ministerial speech may go over well in the selective circles of Westminster, but down in Plymouth, or Cardiff or Leeds we are plain, blunt men and we know that we have suffered under the provisions of these proposals. If you do not assist us in these matters, not only shall we have displaced terminology, but displaced Members of Parliament."
On the direct relationships, to which the hon. Member referred, it is clear that under these proposals there will be no such relationships between non-grant receiving local authorities and the central Exchequer. As between the other authorities and the central Exchequer there will be a modified and indirect relationship, because payment of the grant will be based on the rateable value, although it will have regard to the expenditure. I differ from the hon. Member in his contention, because I say that this form of relationship in the Bill which he praises, is defective. The hon. Member quoted from the leading article in "The Times," which had some words of praise about the general principles of the Bill. But, if he had looked at the letter from Mr. Chester, which is given pride of place in "The Times," he would have seen the words:
Whatever the immediate intention, will the central authority be able to refrain for long from the detailed scrutiny which must go along with this power, and are not they likely to be pressed on this point by the Public Accounts Committee, and the Comptroller and Auditor-General? 
As the House realises, under the old law, as the hon. Member frankly put before the House, there is a direct relationship based on the total of the aggregate rate borne and grant expenditure over the country as a whole, and the


Act of 1937 fixes the block grant at 22½ per cent. of that. The only relationship in the Bill is between expenditure of individual local authorities. I differ from the hon. Member who thinks that this is a good thing. No Measure can be considered satisfactory when it excludes some areas from Exchequer assistance, while the central Government still have power to impose obligations upon them by expanding their duties. That is a violation of the constitutional principle of "No power without responsibility." This part of the Bill is incurably vitiated by being based on an average rateable value, which is' at present computed according to admittedly imprecise and inexact principles. It should not arbitrarily and in accordance with a defective standard have excluded authorities from receipt of grant, nor abandoned the principle of a proper and direct relationship between total grant and total expenditure.
In regard to the part which deals with the valuation machinery, I believe the onus is on the Minister to show that this change is democratic, necessary, and practicable. Will these proposals work, and how long will it take them to work? If they are going to work, are all their provisions as efficient and democratic as may be? Can uniformity be achieved without centralisation of the valuation machinery? I do not need to say much on practicability, because my hon. Friend the Member for Woodbridge (Mr. Hare) made this part of the case very clear last night. The difficulties of the transference of the personnel, and the difficulties of accommodation, are enormous, but were very lightly treated in the speech made by the Minister yesterday. By Clause 33 of his Bill he admits that in certain circumstances there may be a time lag of six years before this machinery may come into effect. That is only a target, and there is nothing in our experience of the targets of the right hon. Gentleman to suggest that they err on the side of pessimism, or caution. It is, therefore, only a minimum, not a maximum, time before this machinery can come into operation.
I have many points to put in regard to the actual valuation machinery, but, perhaps, in the main they are Committee points. Therefore, I need not list them this afternoon. Here again I refer to a speech by an hon. Member opposite, the

hon. Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Burden), who speaks with such authority on these matters. He pointed out yesterday the great power given to the valuation officer, himself an official of the Inland Revenue. I endorse what he said, also his advice to the Minister not to ride roughshod over local authorities, and what he said in regard to the transfer and compensation of local government officers.
As to whether uniformity could have been achieved without centralisation, I am not prepared to be dogmatic. It is a very big question, but the difficulties of the present system have been aggravated by the postponement of the third valuation, and also by the inadequate powers given to county valuation committees, and the central valuation committee, and, perhaps, also by the inadequate exercise by them of such powers as they have. The House are entitled to know what evidence there is that the Minister has given full consideration to the possibility of achieving uniformity at less expense, without centralisation, by the means of an improvement of the existing machinery. In this respect it is rather striking to note that the Minister is more Communist than the Communists; more of a centraliser in this regard than the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) himself, who denounced the principle the Minister proposes to follow in this Bill.
In the part of the Bill which deals with the valuation of dwellinghouses, the Minister, no doubt unintentionally, was, I thought, rather misleading to the House yesterday when he suggested that there were four groups of houses dealt with differently. As the House knows, that is not so. There are in fact three groups, the post-1918 council houses and council flats, post-1918 rent-restricted private enterprise houses, and then all the rest, which fall to be dealt with under Clause 77. The rest include these categories, all pre-1918 houses, post-1918 non-rent-restricted houses, and all flats. The Minister made much play about granges and manors and the like, but what he was reluctant to explain was that pre-1918 small houses, except in such cases where they are rent-restricted, are dealt with on the same principles as the granges and manors. The Minister, in answer to me, said that all these houses were


rent-restricted, although earlier on he made a much truer observation, that as a rule these houses are rent-restricted. I prefer the remark made in the text of his speech, which was scrutinised by his officials—

Mr. Bevan: What?

Mr. Walker-Smith: When he had the advantage of the expert advice of his officials.

Mr. Bevan: What is meant by that statement: "the text of his speech which was scrutinised by his officials"?

Mr. Walker-Smith: Surely, the Minister is not going to suggest that he did not have the benefit of consultation and advice?

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member referred to "the text of his speech scrutinised by his officials." What does he mean by that?

Mr. Walker-Smith: The right hon. Gentleman must be very hard pressed for arguments if he is going to make—

Mr. Bevan: No.

Mr. Walker-Smith: If he does not like the word "scrutinised" let us drop the word. I will make the point perfectly fairly and clearly. My point is this, and I regret that the intervention makes me occupy a moment or two longer than was my intention. The Minister, in fact, in the course of his speech made two contradictory statements, one of which he made in the body of his speech and the other in answer to an intervention made by myself. They are to be found in HANSARD, and they are these. The Minister said:
They are fairly easily valued because, as a general rule, they are controlled, and, as a general rule, they are rented.
A little later on I put a point, and the Minister said this:
Yes, they are, but with this difference that, when we come to the pre-1914 houses, they are invariably rented, and come within the Rent Control Act."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th November, 1947; Vol. 444, c. 1001–5.]
That is the difference to which I am referring. The only point I am making is that, of those two statements by the Minister, I prefer the first contained in

the speech, which, I suppose, he had considered with some care; but he relied on the promptings of his own rather way ward genius for the second.

Mr. Bevan: With all respect, the hon. Member should be careful in his selection of language. He talked about "scrutinised by the officials." That can only have one significance which is that the officials got at HANSARD and checked the speech.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I did not catch the last words of the right hon. Gentleman. I am sorry to have to say this in regard to a Minister, but if the right hon. Gentleman would listen to the whole of the speeches which are made—[Interruption.] I have a very definite recollection that when I was 30 seconds late in taking my place to hear his reply on the housing Debate in July last, he attacked me in a most vicious way. That is on record in HANSARD. I say this to the right hon. Gentleman: If he would treat this House with less arrogance and listen to the speeches which are made, he would not be put to it to take this partial and partisan point. I genuinely regret that what I had tried to make as a connected, coherent and serious argument should, to this extent, have been interrupted by what I think is a very regrettable and quite unnecessary exchange between the Minister and myself which was not at all of my choosing. I am not going to prolong this, because the intervention by the Minister has already cost his hon. Friend some minutes of the time in which he is going to reply to the Debate.
The Parliamentary Secretary was anxious to know what principle we should adopt. I think it right, even at the risk of extending my speech for a moment or two, as I am the last speaker from the Opposition benches, to attempt to give an answer to that. The point has been made, quite rightly, that the 1938 Act postponed the proper application of the existing rating law to this type of house, because, strictly, the element of rent restriction should not be take into account in rating. Therefore, the 1938 Act was, as has been said, a postponement of the full operation of the present law. We on these benches do not want to take any action today which would have the effect of increasing the rates upon small houses.


I assure the Parliamentary Secretary of that. But we do not agree that his method is necessarily the right method to deal with the situation. It is quite possible to work out a derating formula if the Government wish to give rate relief to these houses, and to apply that derating formula. That, I think, is the right thing to do at the present in what are emergency conditions.
If the Parliamentary Secretary thinks that this is only a temporary expedient, I would remind him that this Measure in itself is only temporary, because it looks back to 1939 rents and 1938 costs and, therefore, presumably it is not the final word that the Government have to say on this matter of rating. There are many other points which will arise in the Committee stage, and I conclude by saying that I hope that those hon. Members who criticised this Bill, and whose speeches I have quoted, will back their voices with their votes. I ask them with hope, and my hon. Friends with the confidence that comes of their political sagacity and courage, to vote for our Amendment in the Division Lobby tonight.

6.26 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. John Edwards): I think it a great pity that the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) should have spoiled what was otherwise a seriously argued speech by a suggestion that can only have been regarded on this side of the House as offensive. Everyone here knows perfectly well that" my right hon. Friend never reads a speech at all. The suggestion made must have meant either that he had in fact read the speech, when everybody knew that he had not, or that after the event somebody had got hold of the speech and put it right.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I did not wish to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but let there be no mistake about it. Nobody on this side of the House suggested, intended to suggest, or will be found in HANSARD to have suggested, that the right hon. Gentleman had in any way altered a speech of his in HANSARD. I do not think that the remark of my hon. Friend could possibly bear out that suggestion. I am sure that hon. Members, when they see it in HANSARD, will realise that it does not. I wish to

make that perfectly clear. The point my hon. Friend was making was quite another one which, I think, was a legitimate point of criticism.

Mr. Edwards: I am glad to have the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's explanation and assurance. Perhaps we can leave it there.
A number of points have been raised which are really Committee points. Hon. Members referred to them at the time as Committee points. Our job tonight is to decide whether or not the Bill should be given a Second Reading; whether in general it meets with the approval of the House and whether it can now be sent to a Committee for detailed examination. I, therefore, take it to be my main job to rebut the general arguments used against the Bill as embodied in the Opposition Amendment and as expounded by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) and his supporters. Perhaps I might be permitted to say that as I listened to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman I could not but recall the occasion when I first met him. It was in the early 'thirties when I was young and a member of the Yorkshire Ouse Catchment Board and he was already hard-boiled and Minister of Agriculture. The occasions, though different, have one point in common, namely, a marked scarcity of positive proposals from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. Then, he could not bring himself to make a grant of more than £10,000, or something under 1 per cent. of the cost of preventing floods in the Bentley district. Now, he thinks that £39 million are not enough and wants an advance on 22½ per cent.
Let me agree with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman when he said that so far as a local authority gives up its power of raising revenue, it will diminish its authority. Authorities must be assured of a firm and stable income and they must, I think, in any event raise a substantial part of it from local resources. So far as we can see, that must in the main, continue to be done by the rate, the most venerable tax we have in Britain. It was suggested by several of my hon. Friends during the Debate that income could be derived from the rating of site values. I shall not argue that tonight, for it is the intention of my right hon.


Friends the Minister of Health and
the Secretary of State for Scotland to appoint a committee to inquire into this whole subject. The terms of reference and the membership of the committee will be announced shortly.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman took us very much to task because he alleged that not enough time had been given for proper consideration of this Bill. The first thing I want to say about that is that even if the financial details were not known until the Bill was published, the principles on which we were working, in every part of this field, were known months and months ago, and the only things that were not publicly known until the Bill was published were the actual financial terms. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said there had not been time for him and his friends to consider the Bill, no time to get proper consultation with local authorities. What surprised me was that he was so indiscreet as to follow up that statement by reading a letter from the City Chamberlain of Glasgow, dated 29th October. That is to say that two days after the Bill was available to the public, the City Chamberlain was briefing the right hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman in trying to deal with Scottish affairs of which, I am afraid, he is woefully ignorant. He really should read his brief from his permanent officials a little better than that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The hon. Gentleman suggested that the Chamberlain of the City of Glasgow was briefing me, but as any Scottish Member will know very well, the letter was written by the City Chamberlain, not in response to me, but was, as the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland himself has said, published in the Press in Scotland.

Mr. Edwards: I am sorry if I misjudged the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. I was only using the word "briefing" in the sense of the provision of information and documents. I did not think at the time, although I know now from his explanation, that he was referring to a letter which had been generally published. In any event, it does not alter my argument at all, because the fact is that the

City of Glasgow was in a position to provide all the relevant material and pass judgment on the scheme two days after the Bill had been published, and moreover, the same is true of all authorities. Judging from the correspondence and the number of deputations I have already received, and the people I have seen, I would say that any financial officer of any authority was in a position to work this out fairly precisely within a day or two of having had the Bill in his possession. In any event, is his argument to be that we have to discuss these matters in public with all and sundry before we bring them on to the Floor of the House.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Certainly.

Mr. Edwards: Then the right hon. and gallant Gentleman really says that the House is presumably to be the last place where these important financial and other changes are to be discussed. It might be a pity to go on with that argument, from the point of view of the Opposition. I shall be expected to deal with other parts of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech. I did not think that anyone would be likely to argue that, at a time when local authorities were being relieved of expenditure estimated at £63 million, no change should be made in the financial relationship between the Exchequer and the local authority, but the clear implication of what the hon. Member for Hertford said was that there should have been a Measure for the promotion of uniformity in valuation, and then, at some other time, there should be a Measure for the alteration of the grant system.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Not quite that. What I said was that these particular alterations ought to follow, and not precede the alteration in valuation.

Mr. Edwards: The hon. Member said we were putting things the wrong way round, and that certain things ought to be done before others followed. What he and his friends have not said, is how they would have dealt with the situation created by relieving local authorities of the cost of a certain number of services. Of course, if one ignores, as did the right hon. Gentleman the savings on hospital services and public assistance, then one can say that the new grant is less in amount and in percentage of the total local expenditure, than previously,


but that is completely to misrepresent the position.
The fact is that local authorities, as a whole, will be £39 million a year better off than they would have been under the old arrangement, and however much the Opposition may belittle this, it is true that never before has so much been done for so many ratepayers at one time. It must be remembered, too, that other grants have not been terminated, and that the amount of the equalisation grant will go up as the rate in the £ in various areas goes up. It must also be remembered that the percentage of total credited rateable value in relation to total rateable value, will not be allowed to fall. For all those reasons it is clear there is a connection between the expenditure and the amount of the grant.
It has been suggested by the right hon.
and gallant Gentleman that nothing resulted from the negotiations with the Associations. I, knowing the facts, cannot accept that view at all, because quite apart from the great help we received in the matter of the methods to be used in the assessing of dwelling houses, the transitional grants were conceded during these discussions, and there were arrangements by which all major authorities gained at least 6d. at once, whereas otherwise some of them would have lost. So, something did emerge from our discussions.
The hon. Member for Hertford challenged me about the reduction in rates. Certainly my right hon. Friend has not said, and I will not say, that the effect of what we have done will everywhere prevent rates rising. All that one says is that there will be £39 million which may in part meet the cost of improved services, and in part may be shown in the reduction of rates. I was interested in the fact that although the hon. Member delivered quite a crushing retort to me, and told me to wait for him to continue his argument, he sat down without answering the question I had put to him. I do not propose to give way in order to enable the hon. Member to do now what he failed to do when I invited him to say how hon. Members opposite would ensure that the rates would never go up, unless they were prepared to support a Measure for 100 per cent. grants.
I come back to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities. He argued that,

whereas the 1929 block grant dealt with known factors, the proposed equalisation grant deals with unknown factors. Whether it was because he did not know, or because it did not suit his argument, the fact is that, when the right hon. and gallant Gentleman examined the factors in the 1929 block grant formula, he left one factor out, and the factor which he left out was that of rateable value per head of the population. The omission was significant, because it happens to be fundamentally the same factor as we propose to use in our formula. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said there was no average rateable value, and that we were starting up a machine to provide it and that the machine would not bear fruit—the metaphor was his, not mine—until 1952. There is so much confusion about this that, as I listened, I could only suppose that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had inadvertently turned over two pages of his notes, because he is clearly confusing—if one can confuse anything clearly—average rateable value on the one hand, and uniform methods of assessment on the other, and he put in his argument one part of the Bill which is concerned with uniform levels of assessment, and seemed to talk on it as if it were exactly the same as the average level of rateable value. The two things, I assure him, are quite different, and we do not get anywhere unless we keep them quite separate. There will, of course, be a time-lag, but the time-lag is nothing like the time-lag that we have now.
What have we under the present scheme? In the fourth year of every quinquennium, calculations are made, on the basis of which grants are payable in the next quinquennium. If we make arrangements this year, they will apply at the end of next year and will then go on for five years. When we come to the fifth year, we are thus six years behind. Instead of that, we are proposing to take each year separately, and to deal with it at the time, with the result that, although there may be a little time-lag and there may be a little tidying-up to be done in the month or two following the end of the financial year, we shall, for all practical purposes, settle the account year by year. It is a very slight time-lag of a month or two, by comparison with the time-lag of as much as six years under the old arrangement.
It has also been suggested that rateable value per head of weighted population is not the best way of testing the needs of an area. I would not claim that, as things are, rateable value per head of the population is absolutely ideal. I think it obviously could be a good deal better if we had greater uniformity in valuation, but I do think that it is the best test that is available to us at the present time, and, although it might be modified in one way or another by systems of weighting, I do not think anyone has yet suggested a fairer and better way of running an equalisation grant than this business based on the rateable value per head of weighted population.
Now I come to the question of the blitzed areas, on which matter so many hon. Members are concerned. I hope they will agree with me that the badly blitzed areas present a special problem, and not one suitable to be dealt with in this Measure, which I think we must regard as a permanent Measure. Generally speaking, the loss of rateable properties will tend to diminish the rateable value per head of the weighted population, and will increase the Exchequer equalisation grant in the areas affected. It is appreciated, however, that in some cases, there may be countervailing circumstances, such as a temporary loss of population, while, in others, the rateable value per head of weighted population will still be in excess of the average, and, therefore, no Exchequer equalisation grant will be paid. The scheme under which certain local authorities have been receiving special financial assistance from the Exchequer has, therefore, not been terminated, and I may say that, in cases where the product of a penny rate is still substantially below that existing immediately before the war, the Minister will be prepared to consider applications for a renewal of such special assistance after the new exchange equalisation grants have been notified.

Mr. Medland: Thank you.

Mr. Edwards: Now I turn to other parts of the Bill, and, first of all, to the machinery for valuation. I hope I do not need to argue the case in favour of national uniformity in levels of valuation. In the beginning, it was all right if assessments were uniform within the parish. In

more modern times, it became important that there should be uniformity in the county because of the growth of the precept. With the adoption of the principle contained in a modest sort of way in the 1929 block grants, and more pronounced in our own equalisation grants, it becomes absolutely essential to aim at national uniformity. This is a serious problem. There is no denying the general under-valuation throughout the whole country. There is no denying the widespread lack of uniformity, and I will say to the hon. Member for Hertford that, while he is theoretically right about the under-valued areas in relation to the rate in the £ no one in the House should assume that a high rate in the £ is a sign of comparative under-valuation, for, on such evidence as I have examined, generally speaking, I would say that the reverse is true.
In this Bill, we propose to centralise the work of valuation for weighting purposes. We propose, very belatedly, to take the advice of the Kemp Committee of 1914, and to do in a full-bodied way what the Minister of Health of that time began to do in 1925, when the advice of the Minister, then
Mr. Neville Chamberlain, was rejected
by his Conservative supporters. We propose to try to get uniformity by using one valuation instrument for our purpose. I do not think there is any need to complain of taking away powers from the local authorities. It is only since 1925 that local authorities have had the power both to levy rates and value property for rating purposes, and it is, after all, a technical matter. I have served on a rating committee, and I am not aware of any contribution which any ordinary layman could make in the initial stage of valuation, and I am certain that there are dangers if we leave the business of valuation in the hands of the people who are levying the rate.
Complaint has been made about the autocratic powers of valuation officers. What are their powers, and what are the limitations of their powers? They are subject to very much the same control as existing valuation officers. Their findings are subject to objections and hearings before the local valuation courts, and, on appeal, to the county courts, and, on points of law, to the High Court. That does not seem to me to be anything very autocratic. It is subject to limits and checks at every point, certainly as great as we have now. It has been argued—


I think more substantially—that it will take longer under our scheme to get a new valuation. Let me concede at once that if we were to use the present machine as it is, we could get new valuation lists out earlier, but the valuation would be made on the same basis as hitherto, would be subject to all the shortcomings of the old method, and would, indeed, not correct anything.
It has been argued that in place of the present system we should reinforce the county valuation committees and the Central Valuation Committee for this purpose. I am absolutely certain that, what with the transfer of staff that would be involved and the inherent difficulties of any such arrangement, the new valuation lists would be got out no earlier by this alternative scheme than by the scheme which we have devised. After all, we cannot control valuation in this way; we cannot intervene effectively unless we do the valuation, and unless we are prepared to stand up for what we have done, and, if need be, prove our case before either the local court or the county court. I do not believe that, however the machine was strengthened, it could really do the job in the way we want it done. After all, the job will be done,
for the most part, by those who do it now. We shall need to recruit people who are experienced in rating valuation. We are not in a position to have a general transfer, and that is why there is no general transfer provision in the Bill. However, we shall look to the local authorities to provide us with large numbers of the staffs we need for this purpose. I pay my tribute to the work done by the assessment committees, county valuation committees, and the Central Valuation Committee, but, however much one may praise them for the work they have done in the past, and however much we may learn from their experience, their continued existence must not stand in the way of progress in this vital matter of uniform standards of rating valuation.
I will now turn to the valuation of dwelling houses. I think that here a good deal of the argument would have been avoided if hon. Members opposite had confined themselves to talking about the principles involved. Value, for rating purposes, is a matter of what is defined, as valued by law, and how it is interpreted by the courts. If we are to have

proper standards, they must be objective and ascertainable, and they must, as far as possible, be fair as between all the interested parties. That is what we have tried to do in our proposals. When I asked two hon. Members what they would put in place of our proposals, one of them, in a rather halfhearted way, said the hypothetical tenant, and, the other, the hypothetical tenant mitigated or qualified by the number of children of the actual tenant. The hypothetical tenant, I know, is an elusive person, and I am absolutely certain that it would be quite impossible to enforce the law as it now stands in this matter. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite probably know that better than we do on this side, because it was their Government that ran away from the immediate prewar valuation. I do not think that the law, as it is at the moment, could be enforced.
Therefore, some new basis has had to be found, and what we have sought to do has been to use methods which conform to the canons which I laid down—objectivity, easy ascertainability, and fairness. We have tried to find methods in the various categories that conform to those standards. I believe that if hon. Members will study this matter closely, they will come to the conclusion that, while there are differences in the ways of arriving at gross value, those differences are conditioned by the actual circumstances, and that there is no discrimination involved. The only reason we are not taking the 1938 site values for the owner-occupier house is that we think it would be difficult to get them. That is the point. Therefore, throughout this business, where there are rents to which we can refer, we have used them. Where scarcity elements arise, which would involve very great injustice and unfairness, then we have used a new standard.
I was asked one or two specific questions on railways and electricity undertakings, but before I answer them, may I repudiate emphatically one suggestion made by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman in his opening speech. He said, for instance:
The Minister of Transport might find it a great advantage at some time that rates for the railways should be settled in the recesses of the Cabinet room rather than discussed in the open."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th November, 1947; Vol. 444, c. 1014.]


That was a flight of fancy, or, perhaps, a handful of mud, because no one who read the Bill could produce such a complete travesty of what is proposed. The amounts to be paid are fixed in relation to realities. It is all in the Bill, and if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will read it carefully he will find out what he should have known before he talked like that, that the Minister of Transport cannot affect in any way whatever the amounts to be paid under the Bill.
I turn now to the two specific questions asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith). He was interested in what would happen if the British Transport Commission acquired other property. All I need say, I think, is that it is quite impossible to foresee the operations of the British Transport Commission. That, I should have thought, would be true of any business undertaking, and it is precisely because of the changing circumstances to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman referred that we have inserted Clause 89. The second question he asked was about the Hydro-Electric Board. It is quite impossible to say what the contributions of that Board would have been in future years, but, under this Bill, the initial contribution will be based on the rates paid in the North of Scotland in 1947–48 by all undertakings in that district. This amount will be varied, as elsewhere—it is quite a general provision—according to the variations in the average rates, and the increase in output of units in the North Scotland district.
Before concluding, I wish to deal with two other points that have been raised, and upon which hon. Members may like to have an answer. The first is about Crown property. There is no change at all in the position of Crown property; but I hope, and, indeed, expect, that the centralisation of valuation for rating, for all purposes, might show itself in a closer alignment of valuations of Crown property and valuations of other property.
I was asked about Clause 117 which concerns the information services of local authorities. There is certainly no intention of empowering local authorities to

run newspapers, but there is every intention of encouraging local authorities to use the social techniques which are open to them to give information to their citizens about the work which they are doing. Some hon. Members may have seen the Interim Report of the Consultative Committee on Publicity for Local Government, over which I have the honour of presiding. This Interim Report deals with the range of things that we think local authorities might do and, in case there should be any doubt about their powers to do those things, we have inserted Clause 117. I do not think I need comment on the discussion on allowances for councillors, because the only real point of principle which has emerged is whether these provisions should be mandatory or not. My right hon. Friend has already given our reasons for the form in which we put these proposals, and it would only waste time to elaborate on them now.

In conclusion, I would say that the reasoned Amendment, so called, which has been put down by the Opposition, falls because, in spite of all our questions and in spite of every invitation, hon. Members opposite have failed to produce any positive proposals of their own and they have also failed to show in what way the Bill is sufficiently deficient, not on some point of detail, but in general—in principle—for the House to reject the Measure. I have no doubt, therefore, that the House will support this Measure and will recognise that, although the last word has not been spoken on the relations between the central Government and local government, this at any rate marks a very great step forward in our Constitution.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Before the hon. Gentleman concludes, is he not going to say even one word about the whole of the Scottish aspect, on which so many questions have been asked?

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 286; Noes, 138.

Division No. 25.]
AYES.
[7.3 p.m


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Attewell, H. C.
Ayles, W. H.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Austin, H. Lewis
Bacon, Miss A.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Awbery, S. S.
Baird, J.




Balfour, A.
George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Naylor, T. E.


Barstow, P. G.
Gibbins, J.
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Barton, C.
Gibson, C. W.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Battley, J R.
Gilzean, A.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Bechervaise, A. E
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Noel-Baker, Cap. F. E. (Brentford)


Benson, G.
Goodrich, H. E.
Noel-Buxton, Lady


Berry, H.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
O'Brien, T.


Beswick, F.
Grenfell, D. R
Oliver, G. H.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Grey, C. F.
Paget, R. T.


Bing, G. H. C.
Grierson, E.
Pargiter, G. A.


Binns, J.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Parkin, B. T.


Blackburn, A. R.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Pearson, A.


Blenkinsop, A.
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Peart, T. F.


Blyton, W. R.
Gunter, R J.
Perrins, W.


Boardman, H.
Guy, W. H.
Popplewell, E.


Bottomley, A. G.
Hale, Leslie
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Bowen, R.
Hardy, E. A.
Price, M. Philips


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Proctor, W. T.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Pryde, D. J


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Herbison, Miss M.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Bramall, E. A.
Hicks, G.
Randall, H. E.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Hobson, C. R.
Ranger, J.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Holman, P.
Rees-Williams, D. R.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Reeves, J.


Byers, Frank
House, G.
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Callaghan, James
Hoy, J.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Carmichael, James
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Robens, A.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Chamberlain, R. A.
Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Champion, A. J.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Rogers, G. H. R.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Cluse, W. S.
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool, Edge Hill)
Royle, C.


Cobb, F. A.
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Sargood, R.


Cocks, F. S.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Scott-Elliot, W.


Collick, P.
Janner, B.
Segal, Dr. S.


Collins, V. J.
Jay, D. P. T.
Sharp, Granville


Colman, Miss G. M.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)


Comyns, Dr. L.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Cook, T. F.
John, W
Shurmer, P.


Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Corlett, Dr. J.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Simmons, C. J.


Corvedale, Viscount
Keenan, W.
Skeffington, A. M


Cove, W. G.
Kendall, W. D.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.


Crawley, A.
Kenyon, C.
Skinnard, F. W.


Crossman, R. H. S
Key, C. W.
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Daggar, G.
Lang, G.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S)


Daines, P.
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Snow, J. W.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Leonard, W.
Solley, L. J.


Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Leslie, J. R.
Sorensen, R. W.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Levy, B. W.
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lewis, J (Bolton)
Sparks, J. A.


Deer, G.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Stamford, W.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lipson, D. L.
Steele, T.


Delargy, H. J.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Diamond, J.
Longden, F.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Lambeth)


Dobbie, W.
Lyne, A. W.
Stross, Dr. B.


Dodds, N. N.
McAdam, W.
Stubbs, A. E.


Donovan, T.
McAllister, G.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
McEntee, V. La T
Swingler, S.


Dumpleton, C. W.
McGhee, H. G.
Sylvester, G. O.


Durbin, E. F. M.
Mack, J. D.
Symonds, A. L.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Edelman, M.
McKinlay, A. S.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Thomas, John R (Dover)


Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Marquand, H. A.
Thurtle, Ernest


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Medland, H. M.
Tiffany, S.


Ewart, R.
Mellish, R. J.
Timmons, J.


Fairhurst, F.
Messer, F.
Titterington, M. F.


Farthing, W. J.
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Tolley, L.


Fernyhough, E.
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Mitchison, G. R.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Follick, M.
Moody, A. S.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Foot, M. M.
Morley, R.
Viant, S. P.


Foster, W. (Wigan)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Wadsworth, G.


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Walker, G. H.


Gallacher, W.
Murray, J. D.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Nally, W.
Warbey, W. N.







Watson, W. M.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H.


Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
Woodburn, A.


Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Woods, G S.


Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
Wyatt, W.


White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Williamson, T.



Wigg, George
Willis, E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Wilkes, L
Wills, Mrs. E. A.
Mr. Joseph Henderson and


Wilkins, W. A

Mr. Hannan.




NOES.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Grant, Lady
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Gridley, Sir A.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Grimston, R. V.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Astor, Hon. M.
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Osborne, C.


Baldwin, A. E.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M


Bennett, Sir P.
Haughton, S. G.
Pickthorn, K.


Birch, Nigel
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Hollis, M. C.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Boothby, R.
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Bower, N.
Howard, Hon. A.
Raikes, H. V.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Hutchison, Col J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Renton, D.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Roberts, H. (Handsworth)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Jennings, R.
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)


Bullock, Cap. M.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W
Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland


Carson, E.
Keeling, E. H.
Ropner, Col. L.


Challen, C.
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Channon, H.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Scott, Lord W.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Linstead, H. N.
Smithers, Sir W.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Lloyd, Major Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Low, A. R. W.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Corlett, Dr. J.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Crookshank, Cap. Rt. Hon. H. F C
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Studholme, H. G.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon O.
Sutcliffe, H.


Crowder, Capt. John E.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Cuthbert, W. N.
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Davidson, Viscountess
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.


De la Bçre, R.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Touche, G. C.


Digby, S. W.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Turton, R. H.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Walker-Smith, D.


Dower, Col. A. V G. (Penrith)
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Marples, A. E.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Erroll, F. J.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
White, Sir O. (Fareham)


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Maude, J. C.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Fyte, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Mellor, Sir J.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D
Molson, A. H. E.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Gammans, L. D.
Morris-Jones, Sir H.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Gates, Maj. E. E.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Glyn, Sir R.
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.



Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Neill, W. F. (Belfast, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr Drewe and Major Conant.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I beg to move: "That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House."

The House divided: Ayes, 125; Noes, 275.

Division No. 26.]
AYES.
[7.14 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
De la Bçre, R.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Digby, S. W.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. P.
Bullock, Capt. M
Dodds-Parker, A. D.


Astor Hon. M.
Carson, E.
Drewe, C.


Baldwin, A. E.
Challen, C.
Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Channon, H.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.


Bennett, Sir P.
Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter


Birch, Nigel
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Erroll, F. J.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)


Boothby, R.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.


Bower, N.
Crowder, Capt. John E.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Cuthbert, W. N.
Gammans, L. D.


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Davidson, Viscountess
Gates, Maj. E. E.




George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Roberts, H. (Handsworth)


Glyn, Sir R.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Ropner, Col. L.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Grant, Lady
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Sanderson, Sir F.


Gridley, Sir A.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Scott, Lord W.


Grimston, R. V.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Marples, A. E.
Smithers, Sir W.


Haughton, S. G.
Marshall, D (Bodmin)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Hollis, M. C.
Maude, J. C.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Medlicott, F.
Sludholme, H. G.


Howard, Hon. A.
Mellor, Sir J.
Sutcliffe, H.


Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Molson, A. H. E.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Touche, G. C.


Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.
Turton, R. H.


Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Neill, W. F. (Belfast, N.)
Walker-Smith, D.


Jennings, R.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Keeling, E. H.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Osborne, C.
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Linstead, H. N.
Pickthorn, K.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Lloyd, Major Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Low, A. R. W.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Lucas, Major Sir J.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Raikes, H. V.



Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C (Hillhead)
Ma'or Conant and


Mackeson, Brig. H. R
Renton, D.
Lieut.-Colonel Thorp.




NOES.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Crawley, A.
Gunter, R. J.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Crossman, R. H. S.
Guy, W. H.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Daggar, G.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)


Attewell, H. C.
Daines, P.
Hale, Leslie


Austin, H. Lewis
Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil


Awbery, S. S.
Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Hardy, E. A.


Ayles, W. H.
Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)


Bacon, Miss A.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Herbison, Miss M.


Baird, J.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hicks, G.


Balfour, A.
Deer, G.
Hobson, C. R.


Barstow, P. G.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Holman, P.


Barton, C.
Delargy, H. J.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)


Battley, J. R.
Diamond, J.
House, G.


Bechervaise, A. E
Dobbie, W.
Hoy, J.


Benson, G.
Dodds, N. N.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)


Berry, H.
Donovan, T.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Beswick, F,
Dumpleton, C. W.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Durbin, E. F. M.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)


Bing, G. H. C.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Hynd, J. B, (Attercliffe)


Binns, J.
Edelman, M.
Irvine, A. J (Liverpool, Edge Hill)


Blenkinsop, A.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)


Blyton, W. R.
Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Boardman, H.
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Janner, B.


Bottomley, A. G.
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Jay, D. P. T.


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Jeger, G. (Winchester)


Bowen, R.
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
John, W.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Ewart, R.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Fairhurst, F.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Farthing, W. J.
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Fernyhough, E.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Keenan, W.


Byers, Frank
Follick, M.
Kenyon, C.


Callaghan, James
Foot, M. M.
Key, C. W.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Foster, W. (Wigan)
Lang, G.


Chamberlain, R. A.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.


Champion, A. J.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Gallacher, W.
Leonard, W.


Cluse, W. S.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Leslie, J. R.


Cobb, F. A.
George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Levy, B. W.


Cocks, F. S.
Gibbins, J.
Lewis, J. (Bolton)


Collick, P.
Gibson, C. W.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Collins, V. J.
Gilzean, A.
Lipson, D. L.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Comyns, Dr. L.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Longden, F.


Cook, T. F.
Grenfell, D. R.
Lyne, A. W.


Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
Grey, C. F.
McAdam, W.


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)
Grierson, E.
McAllister, G.


Corlett, Dr. J.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
McEntee, V. La T.


Corvedale, Viscount
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
McGhee, H. G.


Cove, W. G.
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Mack, J. D







Mackay, R W. G. (Hull, N. W.)
Ranger, J.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


McKinlay, A. S
Rees-Williams, D. R
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


MacMillan, M. K (Western Isles)
Reeves, J.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Thurtle, Ernest


Mainwaring, W. H.
Robens, A.
Tiffany, S.


Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Titterington, M. F.


Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Tolley, L.


Marquand, H. A.
Rogers, G. H. R.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Medland, H. M.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Turner-Samuels, M.


Mellish, R. J.
Royle, C.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Messer, F.
Sargood, R.
Viant, S. P.


Middleton, Mrs. L.
Scollan, T.
Wadsworth, G.


Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.
Scott-Elliot, W.
Walker, G. H.


Mitchison, G. R.
Segal, Dr. S.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Moody, A S.
Sharp, Granville
Warbey, W. N.


Morgan, Dr. H. B
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Watson, W. M.


Morley, R.
Shurmer, P.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Murray, J. D.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Naylor, T. E.
Simmons, C. J.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Neal, H. (Claycross)
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Skinnard, F. W.
Wigg, George


Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Smith, C. (Colchester)
Wilkes, L.


Noel-Baker, Capt. F E. (Brentford)
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Noel-Buxton, Lady
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


O'Brien, T.
Snow, J. W.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Oliver, G. H.
Sorensen, R. W.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Paget, R. T.
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Pargiter, G. A.
Sparks, J. A.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Parkin, B. T.
Stamford, W.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Pearson, A.
Steele, T.
Williamson, T.


Peart, T. F.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Willis, E.


Perrins, W.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Lambeth)
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)
Stross, Dr. B.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H.


Popplewell, E.
Stubbs, A. E.
Woodburn, A.


Porter, E. (Warrington)
Summerskill, Dr. Edith
Woods, G. S.


Porter, G. (Leeds)
Swingler, S.
Wyatt, W.


Price, M. Philips
Sylvester, G. O.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Proctor, W T.
Symonds, A. L.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Pryde, D. J.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)



Pursey, Cmdr. H
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Randall, H. E.
Thomas, D E. (Aberdare)
Mr. Joseph Henderson and




Mr. Hannan.


Resolution agreed to.

Mr. Scollan: On a point of Order. Now that it has been decided to commit the Bill to a Standing Committee, would it be in Order for me to move that Part II of the Bill, which relates to Scotland only, be committed to the Scottish Grand Committee?

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that I could not accept that Motion now. If it had been intended to move it, it would have required notice on the Order Paper so that I might have been able to consider and possibly call it. As it is, such Motions would require Debate and should be put on the Order Paper.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Further to that point of Order. Has it not been found in the case of large Bills that occasionally they have been divided, one part being committed to one Standing Committee, and another part to a second Standing Committee? I would suggest that it is only after the House has decided that the Bill is to be considered in Standing Committee that this point can arise. The House having now decided that the Bill is to go to a Standing Committee, is it not possible to consider the solution—as

has been done in the case of other Bills—of dividing the Bill and sending one part to one Standing Committee and another to a second Standing Committee?

Mr. Speaker: I dare say, if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman chooses to put that Motion on the Order Paper, it might be considered, but I do not think it is fair to ask me to decide this question without prior notice.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I simply wish to be assured that we have not lost our rights in this matter. If I may say so, Mr. Speaker, I fully agree that it would be unfair to ask for a hasty decision on such a matter. As long as we have not lost our rights by letting it go on this occasion, naturally we defer in every way to your Ruling.

Mr. Bevan: It will be within your recollection, Mr. Speaker, that three weeks elapsed between the placing of this Bill in the Vote Office and the Second Reading. Ample opportunity has been given to put down such a Motion and to have the matter considered. It was raised during the Debate, yesterday or today. There


has been ample opportunity of giving you a chance to consider this matter—

Mr. Pickthorn: On a point of Order—

Mr. Bevan: I am already speaking on a point of Order. The Bill affects the United Kingdom as a whole, as do many other Bills. The principles are, generally speaking, the same, and it does not seem to me that there is any justification for this claim.

Commander Galbraith: Is it not within the right of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to move now that it may be sent to two Committees? I think that is in Order.

Mr. Scollan: Might I point out, Mr. Speaker, that it was only in the course of discussion today that many of the points came out which proved that Part II should go before a purely Scottish Committee. On that account I asked about it during the Debate, but there was no reply from the Minister. I do not see why he should object to it now.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: In answer to the contention made by the Minister of Health, I submit, very respectfully, that until the matter had been put to the House it would have been very difficult for us to have tabled such a Motion, because we had hoped that the Bill might be considered in Committee of the Whole House, where, of course, every Scottish Member would have a full opportunity of making his voice heard, in considering questions of vital importance to his constituency.

Mr. Bevan: This point has not been raised at all. Surely, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is not seriously suggesting that he expected this Bill to be taken in Committee of the Whole House?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I am well aware of the Government's views on these matters, but the decision is one for the House and it would be quite improper for any hon. Member to anticipate what the decision of the House would be. I am contending that hitherto it would have been out of Order for me to take that course, and that this is the only moment at which it becomes in Order for me to make a recommendation which, I submit, is fully in accord with many precedents.

Mr. Speaker: I am in this difficulty. This is a Motion which requires notice on the Order Paper. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has not lost his right of putting that Motion down. Whether it will be accepted or not remains to be seen, but he has not lost his right to put it on the Order Paper.

Commander Galbraith: With all deference, Mr. Speaker, may I refer to paragraph 2 of Standing Order 46, on page 27, which appears to be applicable?
Provided that the House may, on motion made by the member in charge of a bill, commit the bill to a standing committee in respect of some of its provisions, and to a committee of the whole House in respect of other provisions, and that if such a motion is opposed Mr. Speaker, after permitting, if he thinks fit, a brief explanatory statement from the member who makes and from the member who opposes the motion, shall without further debate put the question thereon.

Mr. Speaker: The trouble is that we have already voted that this Bill shall go to a Standing Committee. It seems to me that we are in some difficulty. We cannot now reverse that vote.

Mr. Scollan: According to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, that we have not relinquished our right to move that part of the Bill shall go to the Scottish Grand Committee, may I give notice that I shall put down an Amendment on the Order Paper to that effect?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member can certainly try to put that down as an Amendment to the Motion we have passed, but he cannot move it now.

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT [MONEY]

Considered in Committee, under Standing Order No. 69 [King's Recommendation signified].

[Major MILNER in the Chair.]

Resolved:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to Exchequer grants to local authorities and grants by local authorities to other local authorities or other bodies, and the law relating to rating, valuation for rating and precepts to rating authorities and, among other things, for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), it is expedient—
(1) To authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of a grant in any year to the council of any county


or county borough in England and Wales or of any county or large burgh in Scotland, being a county, county borough or large burgh the rateable value for which in that year, calculated in accordance with the Act, is less than the standard rateable value for that county, county borough or large burgh for that year, calculated as aforesaid; so, however, that any such grant shall not exceed the relevant fraction of the amount of the difference.
In this paragraph, the expression 'the relevant fraction' means the fraction arrived at by dividing the relevant local expenditure, as defined in the Act, for the year in question by the sum of the following amounts, that is to say, the aforesaid amount of the difference and the product of a rate of one pound in the pound, calculated in accordance with the Act, for the county, county borough or large burgh for that year.
(2) To authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament to the council of any county or county borough in England and Wales or of any county or large burgh in Scotland—

(a) of transitional grants, calculated in accordance with the Act, for the year 1948–49 and for each of the four following years, in the circumstances laid down in the Act; so, however, that any such grant for the year 1949–50, 1950–51, 1951–52, or 1952–53 shall not exceed four-fifths, three-fifths, two-fifths or one-fifth, respectively, of any such grant for the year 1948–49;
(b) of a special grant calculated in accordance with the Act, for the year 1948–49 if any part of that year falls before the appointed day, for the purposes of Part II of the National Health Service Act, 1946, or, as the case may be, of Part II of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947.
(3) To authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament under Subsection (1) of Section fifty-three of the National Health Service Act, 1946, and under Subsection (1) of Section fifty-three of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947, to any local health authority of a sum equal to one-half of the expenditure in respect of which grants are payable under those Subsections, respectively, instead of an amount to be determined by regulations made under those Subsections, respectively.
(4) To authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(a) of any sums required for the purpose of adjusting the grants mentioned in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this Resolution by reason of any modification of the operation of the Act authorised thereunder in consequence of any alteration or combination of authorities or alteration of boundaries;
(b) of the expenses of local valuation panels and local valuation courts under the Act;
(c) of the remuneration of, and of the expenses incurred by, valuation officers under the Act, including the remuneration

and expenses of persons employed to assist them;
(d) of any compensation payable under the Act to officers or servants of the Central Valuation Committee;
(e) of any expenses incurred by the Minister of Works as a consequence of the passing of the Act, including any expenses incurred by him under or by reason of any provision of the Act relating to the acquisition of premises;
(f) of benefits under the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1946, payable by virtue of any provision of the Act to a person in the Civil Service of the Crown in respect of service otherwise than to the Crown; and
(g) of any administrative expenses incurred by the Minister of Health or the Secretary of State under the Act."—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — EMERGENCY LAWS (TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision with respect to the Defence Regulations continued in force by the Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions) Act, 1946, and with respect to certain emergency and temporary enactments extended by or contained in that Act, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by any Minister of the Crown in consequence of the passing of the said. Act of the present Session, and any increase attributable to the passing of the said Act in any sums authorised or required by any other enactment to be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament.

Orders of the Day — EMERGENCY LAWS (TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Continuation for further periods of certain Defence Regulations.)

7.35 p.m.

The Chairman: Before I call the first Amendment in the name of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe), I would point out to the Committee that I have selected it with some hesitation. On balance, however, I think that it is in Order, but I hope that the discussion will not be too prolonged.

Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move, in page 1, line 11, at the end, to insert:
and as respects Defence Regulation fifty-eight A.
It would probably be for the convenience of the Committee if this Amendment were taken together with the following Amendments to the First Schedule and to the Title:
In page 7, line 26, at end, insert:
Regulation fifty-eight A (Control of employment).
In line 3, after "1946" to insert:
and Defence Regulation 58A.
All these Amendments cover the same point, namely, whether Regulation 58A should be continued or not. If hon. Members will turn to page 7, they will see that the effect of the second Amendment, if carried, would be to include Regulation 58A among the Defence Regulations not to be continued in force. This Bill provides an opportunity for considering the Defence Regulations and selecting those which shall not continue in force. The Committee will not, I hope, think that I am occupying its time unduly if I indicate the difference between Defence Regulation 58A and the orders which were made under it, one of which we discussed a few days ago, and which is subject to a Prayer at the present time. The primary purpose of Regulation 58A is contained in paragraph 1. I feel it so important the Committee should appreciate its primary purpose that I venture to read it out:
The Minister of Labour and National Service (hereafter in this Regulation referred to as the Minister) or any National Service Officer may direct any person in Great Britain to perform such services in the United Kingdom or in any British ship not being a Dominion ship as may be specified by or described in the direction, being services which that person is, in the opinion of the Minister or Officer, capable of performing.
The effect of that is that the Minister or any local office of the Ministry can direct any person to any job. It will be appreciated that in addition there are ancillary provisions, notably in paragraphs (4) and (4, a) of the Regulation, by which the Minister can make various orders for regulating the engagement of workers, or for securing sufficient workers for certain industries. These are the orders which have been the subject of Prayer and discussion. We are considering tonight the question of whether the fount and origin of these

orders, the regulation itself, will remain in force or not. In other words, we are considering whether or not we are to proceed along the path of industrial conscription and the slave State. We, on this side of the Committee, want to stop that. The reasoning by which Members arrive at the conclusion whether or not there should be industrial conscription, is the same reasoning which will decide their vote tonight.
I propose to approach this matter from the aspect which Members of the Government have sought to justify. They say, "This is a bad thing which we have always condemned in peace, which we have condemned in recent months, and which we have promised, in the most solemn terms, not to use in this country; but, despite that, the circumstances today are such that this bad thing must continue as part of the law of the land." With that we disagree. First, is there any need for the continuance of this regulation; secondly, will the continuance of this regulation increase the efficacy of our industrial effort at the present time; thirdly, what will be the effect of this regulation on individuals and their future lives; fourthly, what will its effect be on the community?
I will first deal with the need. It is clear that before we say we shall continue the powers of industrial conscription we should look at what might have been done to make the continuance of the powers of industrial conscription unnecessary. This has been justified on the basis that there is some maldistribution of our labour force today. Nobody has ever denied that. I have put that point to the House on three occasions during the last six months; but before we can say that the answer to the maldistribution of labour is industrial conscription, we are entitled to ask if any steps could have been taken—especially when they are obvious—to avoid that maldistribution. It is our first point that the Government were never alive to this question until they had been 18 months in office, and that they took no notice of it until they published their White Paper in February, 1947. Since that time their steps to correct it have been of the most faltering and indecisive character.
We have all said that the most obvious, and critical, and the vastest maldistribution of labour is to be found in the


tremendous number of people who have been retained in Government employment. I put this point in a Debate in the House as long ago as last March, when I asked for a reduction of at least a quarter of a million. At that time, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer was suggesting a reduction of 80,000 but, in fact, after eight months the reduction has been an almost negligible figure—32,000. This is after the increase on the prewar number in national and local administration had risen to over 600,000. It is not only a question of this vastly swollen bureaucracy in itself, but the fact that at least 300,000—an absolute minimum—have to be retained in industry for the sole purpose of marking and filling up the forms which these 600,000 extra bureaucrats turn out. That is one important reason for the maldistribution of labour, and why it is said that we must now turn to industrial conscription. The other reason—and I only indicate it now—is that, no steps having been taken to cure the inflationary trend which has become so apparent during the last few months, it has been impossible to have proper and natural incentives in the jobs—

Dr. Morgan: On a point of Order. Having regard to your Ruling, Major Milner, is the right hon. and learned Gentleman in Order in making references to general economic policy?

The Chairman: I want to keep the Debate as narrow as I can, and I asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman to try to do so. It is very difficult, on every occasion, to prevent him from making references to other matters which are not included in the regulation.

7.45 p.m.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: You will see, Major Milner, the difficulty we are in. The effect of these Amendments is to dispense with Regulation 58A, which gives power of direction and the imposition of industrial conscription. The issue before the Committee is whether that regulation should be continued or ended. I have tried to indicate, without going into details, the reasons why I think the regulation should be ended. The first reason is that had ordinarily prudent steps been taken in time to deal with the maldistribution of labour there would have been no need now to decide whether there

should be the compulsory direction of labour or not. If anyone is asked, "Are you going to vote in favour of continuing the compulsory direction of labour or not," he is entitled to say," What is the need for it? "If the Government had taken steps to deal with maldistribution of labour in time, it would not be necessary to debate this matter now. If, at the moment, the Government were prepared to deal with my other two points, to have an overhaul of the unnecessary material used in the public administration, and to deal with inflation, they could find an alternative to direction and compulsion.
The second point I want to put to the Committee is efficacy. Is this an efficacious method of assisting our industrial output and production at the present time? That must be material. It is a point to which anyone considering this matter fairly, judicially, and in an unbiased way, as I am sure hon. Gentlemen will, should address his mind. I could give a long string of quotations on that point, which have been made by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, in which they have decried the efficacy of direction and the labour which it produces. The presence of the hon. Member for' North Battersea (Mr. Jay) reminds me of a quotation from his book, which I shall not give to the Committee, but which I am sure someone will give before this Debate is over, and, therefore, Major Milner, in answer to you, I confine the recollection of the House to two quotations which I consider are most vital.
One is from the well-known speech of the Minister at Brighton, when he said that the person who was directed was not much use to his shop, his fellows, or himself. The other was the striking remark made by the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) that the result of direction to the coal mines was only to increase absenteeism. I take these as typical, and, I think, a fair selection from a large number of quotations, and they go to the root of the matter. We have the view of the right hon. Gentleman and the view of a most experienced miners' Member who said that, in the case of industry generally, and the coalmines in particular, directed labour is not useful and not likely to add to efficiency of production. Therefore, that point I consider to be established,


because this is a Debate largely between the two sides of the Committee, and that point is admitted by those on the other side of the Committee who have the greatest right to make the admission from their long experience.
I now come to the effect on individuals. One is bound to make a passing reference to what was said as to the effect on individuals in the case of the National Service Bill when service for one year was imposed. This is not a question of a temporary imposition. It is true that the point has been made that the Orders made under this regulation by the right hon. Gentleman are given a first ending period at the end of 1948, but no one in this Committee who has listened to the speeches, from the Government Benches alone, on the duration of the economic crisis, can expect for a moment, or would be so vain and foolish as to hope, that the end of 1948 could be the final period in regard to the continuance of the orders; and certainly the same applies to the power to make them under the regulation. Therefore, what we have to consider, and what right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are voting for, if they vote against this Amendment, is the right by direction and by supplementary order to deprive the young men and young women of this country of the right of choice with regard to their future life for a long period, and, it may well be, for all time so far as each individual is concerned. There can be no graver issue affecting the personal liberty of the youth of this country, and, as I have said, their whole future—not only their industrial future, but their whole future—as to whether they will go through life as free men and women or not.
I leave that point, dealt with in that summary manner, because the point itself—the deprivation of the free choice of work—is of such importance that its very statement is the justification of our answer to it. It is not only a question of individuals. This is not only a question which can be considered from a partial or semi-selfish point of view. It is important enough that the individual should have the chance I have described, but it is still more important that the community of which we are all members should take a part other than this regulation indicates for it. Every hon. Member opposite knows that I could cull from a sheaf of quotations against industrial conscription in time of peace from practically

every hon. and right hon. Gentleman who sits opposite tonight; but I am not going to weary the Committee, or to embarrass those who are facing me, by giving detailed quotations of their views.
I ask them, assuming, as I do, that they were speaking with good faith and truth in their hearts when they made these speeches, what is there now to change the point of view that they so clearly and vigorously expressed? I ask this question: have they abandoned that point of view? Did the speech of the Foreign Secretary at Southport, when he said that for every minute he had been in this Government he had been working for planned direction, mean a complete change of heart and change of mind? Does it mean that a planned economy, or a Socialist economy, is now found to require planned direction; found to require compulsion for the ordinary man and woman as they go into life? If that is so, let us face it.
We shall be voted down tonight but we
shall not be voted down by the country on that issue. If it is once made clear, and honestly admitted, that this planned economy of which we have heard so much means planned direction for young men and young women, we shall face that issue with confidence, not only in the Tightness of our cause, but in our power of winning. It goes further than that. We are, I believe, at a parting of the roads. There is always a hard way and an easy way. I could again give examples from the history of almost every country in the world of the fatal ease with which the lazy way has been adopted. It is so easy to say: "Well, things are very difficult; the situation is almost as serious as during the war. During the war young men and young women were conscripted. Why should they not be conscripted now? In that way we will cure our difficulties."
To say that is, first of all, to ignore the fact that war has a condition entirely of its own kind when the vast majority are ready to make sacrifices to meet an abnormal and unique condition; and, secondly, it ignores that in a time of peace, if we are going to go forward as a free and democratic people, we must demand of the citizenry that they will make a voluntary effort. It is quite true that that demand is not merely a question of putting up posters saying "Work or Want" or using facile expressions in speech. That demand means putting the


truth before the people, even when that truth involves the disclosure and admission of mistakes that have been made. If the truth is put before the people, I am quite sure that the demand for their services will never be made in vain. If we are prepared to say that two and a half years after the end of the war we have abandoned the idea of asking the British people to go forward in liberty because we do not think they will answer to the call of the truth, and are adopting the easy way of compulsion, taking it gradually and following one step after another, then we are simply adopting and administering the old Latin proverb that the easiest road is the road down to hell.
8.0 p.m.
That is the issue. There is no question of where it comes in this Bill or any other point that will obscure the issue, to my mind, to the mind of everyone in this Committee, and Jo the minds of the people of the country. The choice has got to be made whether we will go forward and use every ounce of energy that can be given by free men and women or whether we will submit to this compulsion. That is as serious a choice as the people of this country have ever had to make. We as their representatives have got to make a choice for them tonight as to whether the powers of compulsion will continue. I ask the Committee to accept this Amendment which would take away this stain on our people and give them once again the chance of free lives.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: The Committee, the House and the country are getting thoroughly sick and tired of these idle, irresponsible and mischievous speeches that are made on this subject by right hon. and hon Gentlemen opposite. They do not mean it; they know they do not mean it; and they are deliberately misleading the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] I am not talking about hon. Members on the Liberal Benches. [Interruption.] Let me explain. The hon. Gentlemen on the Liberal Benches voted against any peacetime military conscription and that makes all the difference in the world.
Let us look at the case put forward. It is admitted that, with all its evil and unpleasantness, Regulation No. 58A was necessary in war. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West

Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) sat in this House on the Government Front Bench and defended Regulation 58A. I take it he is not ashamed of that. He does not wish to withdraw it; he does not think by passing and operating Regulation 58A throughout the years of the war that this country was transforming itself into a totalitarian or slave State—or does he?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The hon. Gentleman appeals to me. I made that point quite clear that war conditions were abnormal and during that time in my belief—I know the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) does not share that belief—conscription was justified. I do not think it is justified in time of peace.

Mr. Silverman: I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I heard him say that, and it was not necessary to say it a second time. I still say it is idle, irresponsible and mischievous nonsense. The thing that justified it during the war was not the fact that it was the war, but the fact that the war made it necessary. I do not know why the right hon. and learned Gentleman smiles. This sort of thing is not done in wartime merely because there is a war, but because it is recognised that the conditions created by the war made it necessary. It is defended only on that basis, so that the question whether it ought to be done or ought not to be done does not depend on whether it is war or peace, but on whether circumstances make it necessary.
It is agreed that war circumstances made it necessary, and the question is now whether these particular circumstances of peace make it necessary now. The distinctions between war and peace specifically add nothing whatever to the argument, and answer no question in this argument at all. What were the conditions of war that made it necessary? They were that it was necessary for the emergency created by the war to plan and direct all our resources material and human; that we were in such an emergency we could not afford to leave anything to chance; that we were in such an emergency that we could take no risks; and that we were in such an emergency that we could not afford to waste either material or manpower. Has that emergency passed? Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are going up and


down the country saying that the emergency is more serious or as serious as it was during the war.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman in his own speech chastised the Government for not taking the matter seriously enough, and for never having taken the matter seriously enough. Is not that their complaint against the Government never mind whether it is unjustified or not, and it is not justified. Is there anybody who denies the proposition that our circumstances today—never mind who created them and how; I will come to that in a moment—are as serious as in wartime? Suppose for the sake of argument that it is conceded that it was all the Government's fault, that there had been no war for eight years destroying the whole basis of European civilisation, that we had not planned for several years to destroy the means of our physical and material existence—supposing all these things, it does not alter this argument. The situation is there, and I thought there was no difference between the two sides of the Committee on the seriousness of that situation and the emergency in which we find ourselves. I want to know, as I think the country will want to know, from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite whether they think that in these circumstances, any more than in the circumstances between 1939 and 1945, we can afford to take chances, to take risks?

Mr. Frank Byers: Mr. Frank Byers (Dorset, Northern)rose—

Mr. Silverman: Let me finish this part of the argument. Do they think we can afford to waste our resources, material or human, and that there is any less need today, even though the need is a different kind of need, to plan the resources of our community for the benefit and in the interests of that community? Does anybody deny that now?

Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman has asked whether we are to take the risk. Dare we take the risk? Can I put it to him that it is proposed that we should take one of the biggest risks we have ever taken in undertaking the direction of labour in peacetime, which does not give increased production but merely gives increased numbers?

Mr. Silverman: The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly valid point, and I will

come to it in time. At the moment I am dealing with the argument that though it was necessary, advisable and desirable in war, so that the House could, with virtual unanimity, agree to it, the mere fact that we are at peace makes a difference. I deny that there is any validity in that argument at all.

Mr. Byers: Will the present emergency go on for ever?

Mr. Silverman: I do not know, any more than does the hon. Gentleman, how long this emergency may go on.

Mr. Byers: Mr. Byers rose—

Mr. Silverman: Let me deal with one argument at a time. I will give way to the hon. Member in a moment. I know that the emergency will come to an end much more quickly under this Government than under any other Government. I know, further, that if the election of 1945 had gone differently, this country would now be in a very much worse condition. I think the hon. Member agrees with me on that point. I do not want this situation to go on indefinitely. I do not like industrial conscription any more than the hon. Gentleman, but the only test to apply is not whether war has broken out or whether peace has been declared but whether the situation as it exists requires this drastic Measure or not, I refuse to take seriously hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who voted for all these things during the war and oppose them now, unless they are prepared to say that times are normal, that the war is so far distant and that the difficulties created by it or by anybody else, have so far receded that we can afford to go back to what we are pleased to call normal conditions.
The hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Byers) draws a distinction between peace and war in military conscription, but even that distinction is abandoned by the Conservative Party, so far as military service is concerned". They say, "We will support this during war because it is necessary during war, but not after the war, whether it is necessary or not." Did they apply that argument to the Military Service Bill? [HON. MEMBERS: "It was brought in during peacetime."] I am talking about the


one that was brought in after the war and not the one that was brought in before the war and in anticipation of it.

Mr. Pickthorn: By a Bill.

Mr. Silverman: Certainly, by a Bill. There is a Bill before the House now. This is a Bill. [Interruption.] It is no use hon. Members saying that it will not do. It is true that during the war this law was enacted by decree and by regulation. In this case that is not being done: In this case we have a Bill before the Committee—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] But we have. We are in the Committee stage of it. We are now deciding whether or not we shall give the sanction of a Statute of Parliament to a regulation passed during wartime.

8.15 p.m.

Sir John Mellor: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that in the case of a Bill there is an opportunity to amend the provisions? Would he also agree that it is impossible to amend these provisions by this method?

Mr. Silverman: It would be possible to put an Amendment down. It does not necessarily need an Amendment of this kind—[Interruption.] All right, I am wrong about it—[HON. MEMBERS: "You are."] I am not concerned whether I am right, because that does not go to the principle of the matter. It does not matter whether the thing is brought in by Bill or regulation. Let us concede for the purposes of the argument that we are not now debating the Committee stage of a Bill but debating, say, a Prayer against Regulation 58A. It does not seem to me—

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: On a point of Order, Mr. Beaumont. Before you came into the Committee your predecessor asked us to confine our remarks to the Amendment. Is it not the case that the hon. Member is not doing so?

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): I could not hear what the hon. Member said.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Ought not the hon. Gentleman to keep to the point of the Amendment?

The Deputy-Chairman: I think the hon. Member has been greatly tempted by frequent interruptions.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames): The hon. Member has just told the Committee that this question is now being discussed on a Bill. Is he aware of the fact that Regulation 58A is not in the Bill before the Committee and is only being discussed because my right hon. and hon. Friends have put down an Amendment to include it? It would not have been discussed at all but for the initiative of the Opposition.

Mr. Silverman: I appreciate that point and I appreciate that it is a good ground for a perfectly legitimate argument. I do not accept it but I agree that it is a legitimate argument that we are now dealing with a regulation and not a Bill. That is what I am being asked to do. I do not want to pursue the other point, though I am tempted to do so. It is irrelevant to my argument. If we look at it on that basis we have to look for the reasons for and against it. Whether it is brought in by Bill or regulation is not material. We are debating it now, and we can, if we like, pass or reject this Amendment. We are deciding whether or not Regulation 58A shall be or shall not be continued, and the other procedural point is quite irrelevant to my argument. What I am saying is that the reason which brought about virtual unanimity in the House during the war, exists now. I do not want to be too long about this, tempted as I have been; I want to deal with the actual terms of it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman talked about slavery, freedom of choice and all that kind of thing. There is nothing in Regulation 58A that really limits anybody's freedom of choice except in two respects. A man is no longer free to choose whether or not he will work. Why should he be, in these circumstances? Why should any citizen of this country, at this time and in these circumstances, be free to decide to render no contribution at all?

Mr. Byers: Who is to define what is the contribution which any one individual makes to the welfare of the community—artists, writers and people like that?

Mr. Silverman: That is the difference between the two sides of the Committee. Hon. Members opposite would leave it to the blind play of economic forces, but we prefer, consciously and deliberately, to plan it. That is the real difference


between the two sides of the Committee. Does any hon. Member mean to say that in this country anyone in the working or middle classes has ever had freedom to choose whether he would work or not; or has ever had freedom of choice in his job? Of course not. All that we are doing here is to ensure that there applies to the whole community the necessity to work, which economic conditions have always forced upon the bulk of the working and middle classes of this country. Nor is it a question of choice alone. In these circumstances, the State has not merely the right but the inescapable duty of seeing that that work is not wasted or frittered away.
Just as during the war, if we are to get out of the difficulty in which we find ourselves, if we are again to stand as a free and independent nation in the world, standing on our own feet and making our own living, dependent upon nobody, we must take control of such resources as we have; and, without being tyrannical about it, without being despotic about it, without driving it too far, without handing over everything to an official behind a desk for decision—taking all those risks into account and guarding against them as best we can, we must take our courage in both hands and ensure that our labour and material resources are not wasted. That is what hon. and right hon. Members opposite believe as much as we do. They pretend to believe that these objects have always best been secured by laissez faire economics. Well, they can go on believing that if they like. We on this side of the Committee do not believe it; and the great majority of this country does not believe it either. We believe that we have to plan it—to plan it with care, with deliberation and with courage.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) at times commands the respect and sympathy of the Committee, especially when he speaks on something he understands, and about which he feels deeply and genuinely; but I think he will forgive me if I say that he is not at his most convincing when he is at his most noisy.

Dr. Morgan: The hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) ought to know all about that.

Mr. Hogg: The speech to which we have just listened was, perhaps, one of his

most unconvincing speeches. From time to time we on this side of the Committee have been twitted with what I believe to be the totally fallacious argument that, under the system of economic life in which we repose our confidence there must necessarily be a pool of unemployed. I believe that to be false. But whether or not that argument be true or false, the speech to which we have just listened can leave absolutely no doubt in the mind of any impartial observer that under the system of economics in which the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne believes—whether or not that applies equally to any or all hon. Members opposite I do not pretend to know—there must be a pool of slaves compelled not merely to work at something—because that is not the point under this regulation, which the hon. Member had evidently not read, or at least had not understood—a pool of slaves—

Dr. Morgan: Whose slaves?

Mr. Hogg: —not merely to work at something, but to work at the particular thing which the Government direct him to do. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne was good enough—after a string of epithets upon which I shall not seek to rejoin him—to say that we did not mean what we said when we opposed this order. I beg him to believe that he is wrong. I speak, of course, only for myself. If I have ever meant anything that I said in the House, I mean that I hate this regulation with all the fibre of my being. I am quite willing to go to prison for my opinions, and, if the Government go on in the way they are going, it may be that some of us will have to go to prison for our opinions. I say to the hon. Gentleman plainly that, much as I love my country, and willing as I am to die for her, I would rather see her go down in dust and ruin than go on with this system of slavery, and I mean this as sincerely as anything I have ever said in the House. Hon. Members may agree, or disagree, but I resent the suggestion that what I am saying is not sincerely and deeply meant, and is not felt by many people, some of whom are outside the ranks of the party of which I am a member.
I wish to say something which is, in a sense, personal. This question of freedom and slavery has always had a particularly intimate meaning for me. It is an odd confession to make, but I was


brought up on the arguments between freedom and slavery, as my maternal grandfather was concerned with the American Civil War, which was fought on that very issue. I was brought up to understand how very formidable the case for slavery really was, and how very insidious were the arguments by which it was supported. What were those arguments? They were the arguments which have been addressed to the Committee by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne. They are the arguments by which the Minister of Labour sought to defend his Order the other day.

Mr. S. Silverman: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to be saying that at the time of the American Civil War slavery in the Southern States was supported on the argument that the United States of America at that time were in an emergency created by a war, and had to find their way out by this means?

Mr. Hogg: The arguments were almost identical. It was in fact the main argument of the Southern States. The arguments were these: first, that the public interest required slavery, that they had to get the dirty work done somehow, and only the niggers could be made to do it. So we are going to have a class of niggers in this country, people who belong to "a form of employment incapable of exact definition," or some such phrase as that, in the new order. The dirty work has to be done somehow, and so we have to make the niggers do it. The second argument which was used was that slavery might be a bad thing, but it was a necessary thing, and the slave owners would always administer it kindly and humanely, and could be trusted to do so. In the main, the argument was true; the slave owners did, in the main, act kindly and humanely, and could be trusted to do so.

Mr. S. Silverman: I want to get this clear, because it seems a very important point. Surely, that argument, in those circumstances, was advanced in favour of making one section of the community, although the slave section, do the dirty work. If this order were directed only to one section of the community, the analogy would be complete. The difference is that whereas they said the dirty work could be done by a few, we say everybody must do his share.

Mr. Hogg: That is not so, as I am about to show from a reference to these regulations. That is precisely what the right hon. Gentleman does not say, and the hon. Gentleman, with his usual acumen, has exactly forecast my point. The effect of this Order, as I shall endeavour to make clear in the course of my ineffectual remarks, will be to impose on some people, but not on others, the obligation to do the dirty work. Precisely for that reason I say it is chattel slavery, and nothing less. I am glad the hon. Member has at least done my argument the courtesy that, although he disputes my premises, he admits that if the premises be granted, the conclusion follows.
8.30 p.m.
The next argument which was used was, of course, that the niggers were happier when they were slaves. The hon. Gentleman did not emphasise this to quite the same extent as he emphasised some of the others. The argument is constantly heard from the Benches opposite. It is, of course, in another form, the argument we have been hearing for the last two years that in the years before the war economics enslaved people, and so now when they are enslaved legally instead of economically, they will be happier because they have additional security. Of course, the niggers were happier very often when they were slaves. But I doubt the strength of that argument. I doubt whether it really is sufficiently strong to justify an abominable institution. The other argument was, of course, that the niggers were so idle that they would not work unless they are made to.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is it in Order continuously to describe another nation as "niggers"?

Mr. Hog: The hon. Gentleman has not fully appreciated my argument.

Dr. Morgan: On a point of Order. May I ask whether, if laxity is being allowed to the hon. Gentleman to discuss a point in this way—chattel slavery versus economic slavery—others on this side of the Committee will be given an equal opportunity to indulge in such statements?

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): It is for the Chair to decide how much indulgence should be given. I hope that hon. Members will condense their remarks and narrow the discussion as much as possible.

Mr. Hogg: I was endeavouring to show that the arguments are identical with the traditional and, let it be said, most formidable arguments in favour of chattel slavery. In answer to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), I should be inclined to say, if I might without offence, that if he has really been trying to follow the tenor of my remarks, they were precisely the opposite of what he seems to think. So far from treating the word "nigger" as a contemptuous reference to those who had the misfortune to be slaves in America, I was trying to summarise accurately the arguments by which chattel slavery was justified by their opponents. I had reached the argument that we heard that the niggers were so idle that they would not work unless they were made to work. This is the argument about spivs and drones. The word "niggers" is not used yet, but "spiv" is, and both have as much justification when applied to human beings. The only disadvantage of "spiv" is that it means nothing, whereas "niggers" refers, although perhaps impolitely, to an obvious physiological fact. The argument is that the spivs are so contrary that they will not work unless they are made to work. I do not like the habit of referring to a number of people whom one intends to enslave by an opprobrious epithet as an excuse for turning them into slaves. Frankly, I dislike it. [Interruption.] It may be that the hon. Gentleman likes that method of approach, but I do not. When I say that I do not, I am only expressing a purely personal preference.
I venture to point out to the Committee that even if it were true it would not justify an anti-human institution. It is precisely because the institution of chattel slavery in direction of labour is, by definition, anti-human, that I sincerely intend to oppose this order. I am going to say a good many more unpleasant things about it before I sit down. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Nelson and Colne, having said his tirade, has now abandoned us to correct his speech in the Reporters' Gallery. It needs it, but I do not think that within the Rules of Order he will be able to improve it much. He referred, with some apparent or pretended bewilderment, to the fact that those who agree with me in politics had constantly supported military conscription in time of war, and as a corollary industrial

compulsion, in time of war, and had, indeed, supported the National Service Act which was proposed by the present Government since the war. He seemed to see something inconsistent between that attitude and our opposition to this regulation today. I venture to suggest to the Committee that there is, in fact nothing inconsistent at all.
I make no complaint against those who are opposed to both military and industrial. That is a perfectly consistent and honourable attitude with which I do not happen myself to agree, but I make no quarrel against that. I only say that my own attitude is both intellectually honest and consistent, and my own attitude is that in time of war, death and destruction from an external source are the order of the day. I believe it to be morally wrong that death and destruction should be dealt out only to the best who volunteer for service, and not to citizens in accordance with some objective test. I believe that to be fundamentally wrong, and I believe that wrongness to justify military conscription, and therefore its corollary, industrial conscription in time of war, when the object is an equal sharing of danger to life and limb in a moment of external attack from enemy sources; but that is not what we are discussing tonight.
What we are discussing tonight is the production of wealth by an economic process. It may be that the production of wealth is extremely necessary and urgent for the survival of the community; that I admit may well be the case, but if we give in on this vital point of freedom now, we are taking the decisive step to make slavery a permanent feature of our institutions. I cannot for a moment be persuaded that the mere fact that during the war death has to be dealt out with an even hand, the mere fact that this is so should justify us in abandoning the fundamental principle of freedom which is that a man should be entitled to choose his occupation, and I add, in all solemnity, that he should be entitled, if he pleases, to be a worthless and idle fellow.
Having attempted to deal sincerely with the argument of the hon. Gentleman for Nelson and Colne, I wish to address myself to the more substantial arguments which are sometimes put forward on behalf of the Government. The first argument is based on the necessity


for a redistribution of labour, and for the necessity that everyone—a proposition with which we should all agree—should play his full part, so far as in him lies, in the national effort at the present time. I believe that argument is bad for practical reasons, which I shall endeavour to show, but before I come to deal with the practical reasons, I want to say that even if I were persuaded that slavery was the only way out for this country, I should still be against it. I would rather see this country, much as I love it, ruined, than see it go on with this policy. I would like to be absolutely frank. I do not regard that as an idle mischievous or irresponsible statement. Hon. Members opposite may think that misguided, but I believe it as sincerely as those who went to prison as conscientious objectors at any time in the two world wars. I believe it is far better that this country should be ruined, than that it should indulge in what I believe, rightly or wrongly, to be a form of chattel slavery. It is because I take objection to this on conscientious grounds—and grounds just as conscientious as anything that was ever opposed to military service—that I am making this speech, which is not an easy or popular speech to make.
Having said that, I suggest to the Government that they are being wholly misguided as regards the practical results of their policy, although it seems to me that they are perfectly right in saying that a redistribution of labour is probably the prime necessity for our recovery from our economic problems. I admit that, and I appreciate that they are seeking to deal with this problem in this way, and that they have, at any rate, that legitimate objective in mind. If one analyses the figures, which I think it would be out of Order to do in this speech, I think it can be made abundantly apparent that, if all the people who are now in work were only working, not harder, but just as hard, on different things than they are doing now, there probably would be either no crisis at all or one of very much smaller dimensions than is the case at present.
I do not believe that that is really capable of dispute, but what I do say is that this regulation will do nothing to effect a practical redistribution of labour at all, because it will not deal with those categories who are now primarily misemployed, and, secondly, this regulation,

and the scale on which it is proposed to employ it, are still inadequate to deal with the problem of the redistribution of labour, because the turnover of labour which is required is in advance of anything whatever that will be secured by such operation of this regulation as public opinion will allow the Government to impose.
Therefore, I say that this is a misguided approach. We are sometimes asked on this side of the Committee for an alternative. Well, there is an alternative—an alternative which I should not be in Order to develop now, but which I can mention in a word—the return to the price mechanism. The price mechanism has its defects and it will always have its defects. So has slavery, and if I have to choose between the two, I know which I am going to choose. Moreover, I believe that the defects of the price mechanism can be overcome, whereas the defects of slavery cannot, and I believe that the price mechanism is able to effect changes in the redistribution of labour on a scale comparable to what is required, whereas slavery cannot, because, whatever else may be tried, this people has never, by its nature, been addicted to a love of servitude.

Mr. Austin: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the price mechanism. May I tell him that, under the influence of the price mechanism as it operated in 1929, I was on the dole for 18s. a week? May I also tell him that I would prefer to be directed to a fully-paid job than experience again life on the dole?

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly free to make his choice. There are people who prefer slavery to freedom because it gives them greater security. I suggest that they are selling their birthright for a mess of pottage. I cannot help it if the hon. Gentleman makes that choice. I believe it to be true that, if the price mechanism were allowed to return in our present economic situation, the hon. Gentleman would not suffer the experiences of 1929. I am bound to say that, if it was not so, I would prefer freedom to slavery, even if it were freedom to starve—[An HON. MEMBER: "What does the hon. Gentleman know about that? "] Now, apparently, we are to be starved, but not with freedom, on 2,700 calories a week, or less than the unemployed had before the war.

Dr. Morgan: That is not true.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Hogg: I have one or two other things to say to hon. Gentlemen opposite who prefer security to freedom. Their attitude is not merely false; it is also a very foolish one, because, as a matter of fact, all the good things of life and all the material standards of life, for which we have been working and fighting for years, now depend, in the last resort, upon freedom, and, if we destroy freedom, in the end we shall destroy that state of society in which these things are possible.
This regulation, it is alleged, is designed only against the idle who will not play their part in the national effort, but that is not its effect. Its effect will be to select for adverse treatment people who are either self-employed or who are employed in one, two or three named categories, or who are employed in some capacity which it is difficult to classify. That is the operation of this regulation. It is those people whom we are determining to enslave, and not the population as a whole. There is no question at all of the great mass of the population being affected by this regulation in any way. There is no truth at all in the suggestion made from the benches opposite that all that is being asked is that everybody should make his own contributidon. What is being asked is that certain specific categories should be enslaved, and that I am not prepared to concede on any terms whatever.
I want to ask the Committee, in the few remaining moments that are left to me, to consider what would have been the effect on various well-known historical personages if this regulation had been in force in the past, instead of the rule of Common Law by which Englishmen were then considered to be free. What would have happened to the man who invented the steam engine? Was he in a form of employment which it was easy to classify? There he was, wasting his time in the kitchen looking at the steam coming out of the spout of the kettle. What would the right hon. Gentleman have said about him? He would probably have said that he was a "spiv at the spout." What was Shakespeare fooling around—

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is tending to go very wide of the Amendment under discussion, and I must ask him to come back to it.

Mr. Hogg: I am endeavouring, Mr. Beaumont, to show what the effect of this regulation would be. We will not call him Shakespeare; we will call him Robbie Burns, or Bacon, or Fletcher, or Beaumont. Supposing the right hon. Gentleman opposite found an idle sort of fellow rootling round the woods chasing deer, and writing poems in his spare time; what what would he be called—a drone, an eel, or a butterfly? I do not know to which category he would belong, but I do know that he would come within the ambit of this regulation. If the right hon. Gentleman says that he is such a good judge of poetry and art, and such things, that the people affected in this way will only have to submit specimens of their work to him in order to get a licence to pursue their craft in their own way and time, I can only say that I do not believe him. There is only one way in which one can really value the operations of the artist, and that is by giving him freedom. Oddly enough, moreover, there is only one person in the world who can classify who is and who is not a genuine artist, and that is the person himself.
If we are, in fact, going on with this policy, there is absolutely nothing in the world which is going to protect the ordinary man or woman who happens to be something of an individualist—and who happens to wish to lead his or her own life—and, it may be, to offer to the community in that way something far better than those whose business it is to be occupied more regularly in some humdrum task—from being prosecuted and enslaved, and sent to prison. I would point out that I do not speak on this matter for other Members of my party; I do not speak for anybody but myself, but, none the less, I speak with complete sincerity. I believe it is the duty of people to refuse to register under this regulation. If anybody does refuse on conscientious grounds, let the right hon. Gentleman send him to prison and I shall be proud to go with him. I shall do my best to get him out if I do not go.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): The hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) a few minutes before he finished his speech, asked me if. I was a judge of poetry. I admit at once that I am not. But, as a Cockney, I think I am a judge of humour, and what I have listened to I do not regard as humour at all. The hon. Gentleman


has tried to make play with what he himself has admitted is a serious subject.

Mr. Hogg: I was never more serious in my life.

Mr. Isaacs: The hon. Gentleman finished by advocating that people should disobey this regulation and refuse to register.

Mr. Hogg: I meant that seriously, too.

Mr. Isaacs: I believe the hon. Gentleman did. I wish it was possible to test the hon. Gentleman's sincerity in the matter by giving him a direction and seeing what he would do about it.

Mr. Hogg: On a point of Order. I am very happy to accept that test. The right hon. Gentleman can direct me tomorrow, and I shall refuse to obey his direction.

Mr. Byers: On a point of Order. Is it in Order for a Minister to be as vindictive as that so quickly?

The Deputy-Chairman: Perhaps it would be as well if the Minister continued his speech.

Mr. Isaacs: I want to deal with some of the points which have been made this afternoon. I would ask, with all respect and sincerity, whether it is necessary to repeat the statement that was made in justification of our asking the Committee to give us the order which we got a few weeks ago. We gave a full explanation of it. This afternoon there has been an attempt to prevent this order being effective, and we are wondering why. [Interruption.] I listened right through the speeches of three legal Members, and I did not have the temerity to interrupt. I therefore ask hon. Members to give me a chance to get going. If I put my foot in it, they can then pull me up.

Mr. Pickthorn: I do not wish to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I think he said, "order" on the second occasion when he meant "regulation" for the purpose of his argument, and I wanted to get it straight.

Mr. Isaacs: Hon. Members who are learned in the law have fallen into exactly the same mistake all the way through the Debate. They should not blame me if I do the same. It is difficult not to get mixed up. We are making an order under a regulation, and the Amendment before

us relates to the regulation and not to the order. I hope, having got it straight up to that point, we can keep it straight for a bit further. I am sorry the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe), who moved the Amendment, is not here because, once again, I had the feeling that he was working himself up into a passion and he did not really feel like it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Those of us who know the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and on all sides respect him, really understand him. That is my impression and I am entitled to express it. Some hon. Members may not agree with me, but I am entitled to express my opinion and I have done so. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that we are embarking upon the path leading to the slave State. We shall be a slave State unless the workers can save us from it, and only the workers of this country can save us. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why? "] Are we not told to produce more goods to sell abroad for export, and all the rest of it? Did not a certain hon. Member say that if these people who are working, would only work harder there would be no need for this order? Did not the hon. Member for Oxford tell us that?

Mr. Hogg: I said exactly the opposite. I said that if only people who were working could work at something different—not necessarily harder—there would either be no crisis, or the crisis would be of smaller dimensions. I said exactly the opposite.

Mr. Isaacs: I am sorry to disagree with the hon. Gentleman, but I took down his words. He said, "If people now in work worked harder."

Mr. Hogg: No, I did not. On a point of Order,
Mr. Beaumont. The right hon. Gentleman did not take down my words, and I challenge him to produce them from the OFFICIAL REPORT. It is an absolute outrage that people should say directly the opposite, and pretend to get away with it by having taken down something inaccurately. I am within the hearing of the House.

Mr. Isaacs: We will leave it to the hearing of the House, and we shall be able to decide in the morning. May I say at once that, if I have misinterpreted the hon. Gentleman, I will apologise in advance, but the impression that I obtained


from his words was that he said people must work harder.

Mr. Hogg: I said the opposite.

Mr. Isaacs: Does the hon. Member mean work less hard?

Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman really must try not to mislead the Committee. What I said—and I am going to say it only once more now—was that if only people were working, not harder, but in different positions from those in which they are now, either there would not be a crisis, or not a crisis in the same direction. I notice that the Home Secretary is nodding his head. He was sitting there throughout my speech. I ask him to correct his right hon. Friend.

Mr. Isaacs: I will accept that. If people would work in the jobs where they are more useful. Is that what the hon. Gentleman means? Well, how are we going to get them to those jobs?

Mr. Hogg: Not by direction.

Mr. Isaacs: Not by direction? We were told by the right hon. and learned Gentleman who opened the Debate that he admitted that there was maldistribution of labour. He said the Government were never alive to this and took no action to redress it. Did they not keep the Control of Engagement Order on the miners and keep them tied to their jobs? Did they not keep the control on the agricultural workers and keep them tied to their jobs? Did they not keep the control on the building trade workers and keep them in that industry? I never heard any righteous appeals in this House to set those men free.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Clement Davies: On every occasion.

Mr. Isaacs: Oh, no. We shall see; but I do not recollect an appeal being made. Did we not, by voluntary means, do the best we could with the four million men who came out of the Forces to get them into the industries necessary to be manned up? There had to be no direction then, and there would not be direction now if persuasion carried its way. I believe persuasion is going to carry its way a long distance. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said—and I agree

with him—that this matter must be considered fairly, judiciously, and in an unbiased way. With great respect I would say that I wonder if it has been discussed up to now judiciously or in an unbiased way. He went on to refer to the effect on individuals. That is a matter to which I should like to come. He said we had no right to deprive men and women of the right to choose their jobs. What are we to do about this? Are we to see that people are to be deliberately engaged in work not necessary to the welfare of the community at a time when there are necessary jobs? I do not know whether it was the hon. Member for Oxford or the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), who spoke before him, who referred to the fact that asking people to do those things they care about would be effective. I have a recollection of my own, when, as a young man, I was engaged to sweep the snow from the streets of Finsbury—not because I wanted to do so, but because I had no other work to go to; and I remember I was walking to work in shoes that let in the water through to my feet, and I wanted a pair of boots.

Mr. Marlowe: Mr. Marlowe (Brighton) rose—

Mr. Isaacs: I have listened to everybody else. Let me be listened to. Let me tell what I think about this matter. Hon. Members talk about direction and people being "directly directed" or "indirectly directed"—about negative and positive direction. I can remember when some 200 railway engine cleaners had to come from Scotland to England to follow their jobs or be out of work. I can remember an instance in my own trade—printing—when a famous London printing firm decided to move into the country and said to the. people working for them, "You can if you like take your jobs in the country, or we have nothing else for you." But their wages for their jobs in the country were 15s. a week less than their wages for their jobs in London. So we had that kind of direction put upon us.
The hon. Member for Oxford—I came in a little late, and I do not think I should be quite right in attributing the reference directly to him; he may have been taking it up from somebody else—made a reference to "dirty work—get the niggers to do it." As I say, he may have


been paraphrasing a remark made by someone else. But who is going to do that work? Somebody has to do it. I wonder if the friends and associates of hon. Gentlemen opposite, when there are dirty jobs to be done will say, "Find me a nice dirty job and I will do it." I am perfectly sure they will be looking out for the clean collar jobs. He also mentioned the production of wealth, and referred to the necessity for looking after the welfare of the community. The production of wealth is effected by those who give some effort and service to the community, whether it be the man who works at the bench, the manager, the traveller, or those at the top who do the planning. The only wealth this country gets is produced by the application of labour.
9.0 p.m.
Suppose somebody is not prepared to do his part towards that labour, in some way or another, or to do his share in helping the nation in its time of need like this. The hon. Member for Oxford says that a man is entitled to be worthless and idle if he wants to be. Who does the hon. Member suggest should feed, clothe and house that man? In the old days, bad as the old Poor Law was, they had to feed, house and clothe such a worthless idler. What happened? All sorts of pressure was put on boards of guardians all over the country, making it criminal and punishable for that man to go to the board of guardians for food if he was capable of work. That was a form of direction. Therefore, this direction for which we ask is no new thing at all.
The hon. Member for Oxford made reference to the price mechanism. He argued that we should let the price mechanism operate, thereby making men flow from one job to another. That means cutting down wages to the lowest level in order to force men to go to other jobs. That is how the price mechanism worked in the past.

Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman is not really being quite fair. I was pulled up during the course of my speech by the Deputy-Chairman—rightly, as always if I may say so, respectfully—when I was attempting to enter into an argument on what I meant by the operation of the price mechanism. It really is not fair for the right hon. Gentleman to taunt me

now for not having dealt with it at greater length.

Mr. Isaacs: It is not my intention to taunt the hon. Member; I am answering a point made during the Debate. I do not desire to indulge in taunting any hon. Member. I do not want to argue the point, but I do desire to make a reference to this matter which he raised. After the last war, round about 1922, the price mechanism operated. It cut down the wages of working men by 20s., 25s. and 30s. a week, bringing them down to starvation level. If that is what the price mechanism means, I am perfectly sure the workers of this country would prefer being directed to a job at which they can earn a decent wage, then to have to put up with the conditions which prevailed under the price mechanism.
I do not want to go at great length into the methods we have to adopt. We must have this regulation. To be perfectly frank, in the main it will be a power in the background. We are satisfied that a great number of our people will respond to the guidance which is being given in the employment exchanges, and will take the jobs offered to them. We really must have this power. There may be a man who can do a job for which he is badly needed; perhaps a skilled electrician is needed in a power station because the power plant is standing idle. There may be a great many mechanical gadgets, machines of different kinds, which cannot be operated because there is not a sufficient flow from the electrical motor, and if we find a man who can deal with faulty electrical motors, who can get the job going and the machines produced and on the market, we think it best to have him doing that, which is something worth while and useful. We should be wrong in saying to such a man, "You can do a job on the pools" or some similar job, and that he need not do a job which is necessary for the country. We are asking in this regulation for power to deal with that situation.
We have the Control of Engagement Order, but if this regulation is taken away from us, the whole thing will be completely null and void. I say, without any hesitation, that, under those circumstances, we should not be able to carry out the redeployment of labour and the essential manning up of industries in this


country. There are many vital industries for which we must find manpower in order to keep the wheels of the nation's industries turning properly. I have not been in touch with the employment exchanges within the last two or three days, but I cannot recall that we have yet had to impose any absolute direction, although there may have been cases which have not come to my notice. We feel that people are saying, "All right, tell us a job to do and we will go and do it." We believe we can carry on along those lines, and we think it is necessary.
The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne has said that the country is in a state of emergency. Sometimes the Opposition tell us that we are not taking this crisis seriously enough. The Government take it sufficiently seriously to ask our people to surrender that amount of freedom for the time being, and to take the jobs which we offer them. Yet, in doing this we are told we are doing a bad thing. How do we work it? When a man or woman comes into the employment exchange, we offer a choice of jobs. I went into this before, but perhaps hon. Members will not mind if I repeat it again. If it is possible, we will' offer a man a job in the industry in which he has been actively employed. If not, we shall find an industry in which that class of labour can be usefully employed. It is not until a man has turned down the offer of the four jobs, for which he is suited in the opinion of the officer, that he is told to take one. If a man who is offered a job accepts it, he goes there without being directed—[Laughter.] What is wrong with that? I can see what is wrong; it is not the statement which is wrong. Let me repeat it. A man goes to the exchange. He is asked to take a job. He says: "I do not like that one." He is shown another, and says: "I will take that one." Having taken that one, he is not directed.

Mr. Molson: It is Hobson's choice.

Mr. Isaacs: If hon. Members opposite are asking me to impose directions upon a man directly he comes into an exchange without giving him a chance, let them say so. We are trying to be fair. Please understand that some of us have worked side by side with working people. We have learned from our contacts with

them on the bench, and not from reading about them in books.

Mr. Hogg: Some of us have fought side by side with them.

Mr. Isaacs: I accept that. The hon. Member is proud of having fought side by side with working people, and he says that they are darned good people. That is our point too. We believe that they are good people, and we believe that they ought to have a fair deal. We want to give them a fair deal, and we are doing it. If the nation's need requires it, we must call upon everyone who can turn a hand to help their country. That power is there, and we want to keep it. We shall exercise it with all the care, courtesy and decency we can. We ask the Committee to reject this Amendment; otherwise we cannot do the task.

Mr. Blackburn: The Minister has made a very conciliatory speech. I think that many of the remarks made earlier were intended to apply more to the powers than to the intentions of the Government Front Bench. May I make it perfectly plain that, in the long discussions we have had on this matter of direction of labour and other forms of power, the central point is the one which the Minister of Health has laboured over and over again, namely, that there is all the difference in the world between coming to the House with a specific power narrowly limited to the purpose it is intended to achieve, and taking a vast range of power, far wider than is needed to be used at the moment, and then later on finding you are going down the slippery slope as you discover that you have not utilised the full powers which have been taken. In other words, the central issue is this. It is not, as the Minister has said time and time again, the intentions of the Government that matter to us, but the powers, because we are granting the powers.
I am bound to say to the Minister that I am by no means clear, having read his last speech over and over again, what the Government are doing under this regulation; nor do I find that the people of the country are at all clear about it. As I understand it, it is the case that once a man is a miner he is going to remain a miner, and that once a man has taken a particular form of employment, he will remain in that employment. I


believe that to be one of the effects of this regulation. I draw the Minister's attention to the remarks he made when he was asked about married women. He said that married women do not come under the direction of labour unless they volunteer. What an extraordinary situation that would be.

Mr. Isaacs: What I intended to convey was that we are calling on married women to volunteer, and that they will not be directed if they come along and volunteer.

Mr. Blackburn: Then that means that if married women volunteer they can utilise the employment exchanges, which will offer them jobs, but that if they take jobs they are not to continue to be subject to direction. Married women are out of the scheme altogether, whether they volunteer or not. Do I understand that married women are not to be directed in any circumstances?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards): That is quite right.

Mr. Blackburn: That is a most important point. I am glad to hear that. It makes a great deal of difference to the scheme if married women are to be exempted entirely from the direction of labour.

Mr. Henry Strauss: Whatever the Minister's intentions may be, they are certainly not exempted from the regulation we are now discussing.

Mr. Blackburn: I have already made that point, and I have said that primarily we have to consider the powers. The Minister will operate these provisions, and it is of great interest to the Committee and the country to know what he intends to do. I have no doubt at all that the Minister, having said tonight that he has no intention of directing married women, will fulfil that undertaking.
I hope it will not be considered academic if I deal with the arguments that have been adduced tonight. I do not believe that the speech of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) represented the point of view of the Government. It has been made plain many times by the Government, in their election policy, and in "Let Us Face The Future," that in the Labour movement

we draw all the distinction in the world between war and peace. I do not think it is forgotten that all the totalitarian régimes have said that in time of peace they were really at war. That is what Stalin says, and that is what Hitler said. It has been made clear over and over again, by the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister, that we do not draw a parallel between war and peace. Of course, the Government are now faced with a crisis of appalling magnitude, which has been partially caused by the misapplication of our domestic labour force, and it is a matter about which they are entitled to ask Members on all sides to be specific.
I want to put to the Minister of Labour a point I put to him on the last occasion we debated this matter. It was decided by the unanimous vote of the Labour Party, on 29th May, only six months ago, that we were not to have direction of labour, but were to have a differential wages policy. That was supported by Lord Dukeston, speaking for the Municipal and General Workers' Union, Mr. Arthur Deakin, speaking for the Transport and General Workers' Union, and the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, replying on behalf of the Executive, who used these words on the subject:
We cannot accept the resolution moved by Mr. Deakin because it might, in some circumstances, appear to indicate that we favoured the direction of labour. We do not.' We favour a differential wages policy.
It is only fair to recognise the fact that at the Election we said it was our intention to enlarge freedom. In my manifesto I made it clear that Socialism did not involve the direction of labour. I was specifically challenged on that point by my Conservative opponent. He said that Socialism did involve the direction of labour, and I said that it did not imply the direction of labour—

Mr. Shurmer: Where is the hon. Member's Election address?

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Blackburn: I am asked where my Election address is; it is not necessary for me to produce it. It was not in the Labour Party's programme, but it was an implication of our programme, and I am quite certain that it was the long-term intention of the Government that the direction of labour should disappear as soon as possible.
May I deal with the question of duration? How long is it intended that direction of labour shall last? Is it intended that it shall last as long as the crisis? If that is the intention, it will last a long time. I was in the House, and I voted for the Government on the issue of basic petrol. I listened to the speech of the Minister of Fuel and Power, and he ended by saying that, even if what is known as the Cripps' plan succeeds, at the end of next year our gold reserves will have dwindled to £250 million, and we shall still be running a heavy dollar deficit. If that is so, it is clear that the duration of the crisis will last for many years. I hope that the Minister will make clear how soon he hopes that this form of direction of labour will end. May I express a fear—and I put it to the Minister—not only that this thing will last much longer, but that the direction of labour will be by compulsion in a manner different from that which he has indicated tonight? If it is the case, as I see it, that this crisis will get far worse and our raw material shortages greater, and if our food position should also get worse, then, surely, the Minister will come to the House and say, "I did not intend to do so at the beginning, but now I find that I have to use greater powers of direction." That is what one hon. Member after another on these Benches has said, and has been cheered by a certain section of Labour Members. That is why I think it is clear that the Government should express their view on that kind of argument. I emphatically deny that Socialism implies, or should imply, in our British sense of Socialism, any diminution of personal freedom whatsoever. I say that we fought the General Election on the issue of obtaining a planned economy with personal freedom.
My second point is that the powers of direction must be linked with raw material controls. I suggest that a serious aspect of this is the threat made by the President of the Board of Trade, as he then was, only two months ago, when he said that if a firm did not fulfil what the Government regarded as its obligations in the realm of export trade, raw materials would be withdrawn from that firm. I do not deny that raw material controls are vital and must be exercised with great care, but if raw material controls are to be exercised in that way—

The Deputy-Chairman: I have allowed the hon. Member a great deal of latitude, but I think he is now going much too far.

Mr. Blackburn: I am submitting, Mr. Beaumont, that by the use of raw materials as controls, the Government are artificially creating unemployment and thereby placing workers under the powers of direction. That is a view put to me by many trade unionists who ought to know, and I hope that it is a point which the Government will deal with. I would say that it is legitimate to use raw materials as controls in some circumstances, but it seems to me that a combination of the withdrawal of raw materials, on the one hand, and the power of direction of labour, on the other, would be a most dangerous thing.
Finally, I come to the main point which I think this Debate raises. It has been said that the alternative to the direction of labour is direction by starvation. I have heard that pointed out on many occasions from these benches.

Mr. Shurmer: We have seen it in Birmingham, a constituency of which the hon. Member represents.

Mr. Blackburn: Surely, the Government have taken the necessary steps to see that there is no starvation in this country again. Surely, we are all proud of the social security proposals which we have put forward. I think that starvation, so far as direction by starvation is concerned, is a thing of the past. I want to make it perfectly clear—is it or is it not right that there is a Statute on the Statute Book which ensures that every man, woman and child in this country shall never again live in fear of starvation? Surely, that is accepted
by all sides of the Committee, and if that is so, the direction of labour by starvation is a matter of the past. By what means are we to get workers from the under-manned industries to the industries we want to man? I am not allowed to go into this, because it would be out of Order, but I end by saying that I believe that in the last resort, there are two roads we can take—the road of compulsion or the road of competitive selection.

Dr. Morgan: That is a road of compulsion, too.

Mr. Blackburn: I am trying in one sentence to be constructive and to say something


for which I know I shall be criticised, as I have been criticised. I believe that we must combine a planned economy, not with compulsion but with competitive selection. That is the great problem of our time. If we start combining a planned economy with compulsion—I am not making any statement about the right hon. Gentleman's speech, because I am quite convinced at the moment that he does not intend to apply this as direction of labour. I do not believe that the Foreign Secretary would agree to direction of labour in this country, nor do I believe that the Trade Union Congress would agree to it—

Mr. Pickthorn: Only Parliament agrees to it.

Mr. Blackburn: I am not in a position to deal with the issue of Parliament agreeing to it. Already the House of Commons, by various votes, has indicated that it agrees with the policy of the Government, and as democratic Members of Parliament we have to accept that. However, I do not believe that a planned economy with direction of labour, which I believe to be wrong in principle and morally wrong, would make for efficiency. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite who has made certain allegations tonight, but I am bound to say that many trade unionists have come to me and told me that if they personally were directed to a job they did not want to go to, they would rather go to prison. I am perfectly convinced that that is a point of view sincerely held by many people who voted with, and worked in, the Labour movement over many years. I believe that to be the true spirit of the British people.

Mr. Cecil Poole: In order that we might follow the argument of the hon. Gentleman with complete clarity, will he define what he means by "competitive selection? "

Mr. Blackburn: I should like to do so and I hope I shall be called on another occasion when I can deal with it, but I am afraid it would be out of Order on this occasion. [Interruption.] I am not afraid to deal with this point, and I would be delighted if I could do so, but would it be in Order?

The Deputy-Chairman: As the hon. Gentleman has asked me, the answer is "No."

Mr. Blackburn: I am very grateful to you, Mr. Beaumont.

Dr. Morgan: That is the hon. Gentleman's way of escape.

Mr. Blackburn: Whatever view is held of me, I do not think I can ever be accused of being afraid to say what I think. I have never been frightened by jeers or taunts or any other form of bullying.

Dr. Morgan: Nor have we.

Mr. Blackburn: I never said the hon. Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan) was. I want to end on this note. I believe that the crisis will really be surmounted by liberating the great genius, vigour and enterprise of the British people. I believe they will not take the path of compulsion, and I seriously hope that when the Government finally reply, they will make it perfectly clear that the direction of labour is something which they have spoken about in phrase, but have no intention whatsoever of implementing in practice.

Mr. Henry Strauss: I agreed with every word spoken by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe), who moved the Amendment. I thought indeed that in one respect he understated the case. In two or three passages he pointed out the tyranny of directing the young. Actually, the regulation which we are considering is very much more serious than that. There is no limitation whatever to the young; direction can be applied to a man or woman, married or unmarried, at any age. That is the regulation which we are considering.
I was, I must say, shocked by the reply of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour. That shocked me, not because it showed any lack of humanity. I do not believe that anybody, either among his friends or his political enemies, would ever suspect him of that. What shocked me was his absolute failure to understand what principles are involved in this great discussion. It is, in the sincere view of hon. Members on this side, I think also of hon. Members on the Liberal Benches and, I cannot help thinking, on the Government's own Benches, one of the most serious issues which the House has ever been called upon to debate.


One thing I did deplore in the Minister's speech, and that was a reference to the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend. The Minister said he did not think that my right hon. and learned Friend meant it. We really do mean what we say on this issue. In fact, I have never known any issue on which feeling was stronger or more deeply held. Let me try to explain to the right hon. Gentleman some of the issues involved, as we see them.
This direction of labour really is slavery. I am there using the word not only as a Conservative might use it. I shall show again that it is a phrase used by the right hon. Gentleman's own supporter, the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Jay). I have, on a previous occasion, given the hon. Member some advertisement of his book, and I am most willing to do so. I wish it were widely read. Since on the last occasion I stopped short of the mention of the word "slavery," I must read the short passage again together with the following sentence. I will read what the hon. Member for North Battersea said. I give him full credit for still believing it, unless he gets up and says that it is no longer his belief. I shall watch with interest to see in which Lobby he votes tonight. The hon. Member said in his book:
For one absolute limit must be set to the extension of planning in normal times;"—

Mr. C. Poole: Are these normal times?

Mr. Strauss: I think we should get on more quickly if I were allowed to make my own speech. The book goes on:
and that is the point at which it infringes on personal as opposed to economic freedom. Personal freedom means the right of the individual to do what he likes with himself, to work for whom, for what, when and where he chooses. To take this right away, is to infringe one of the most fundamental of human freedoms—perhaps the most fundamental, since inability to choose how one works is the essential mark of slavery.

Mr. C. Poole: Mr. C. Poole rose—

Mr. Strauss: I will yield to the hon. Member if I fail to deal with the point he has in mind. I promise hon. Members that I will not be slow in yielding, but I know that great numbers want to speak, and I do not want to be unduly long. The point that the hon Member may have in mind is the question whether the present situation is not

parallel to war. That point was made more or less—if any point was made—by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). I was a little surprised at hearing from that quarter the most pure enunciation of the doctrine of National Socialism that I have ever heard. The point made is that because these essential liberties may have been interfered with in the war there is no reason why they should not be interfered with now. The difference has been made clear by many hon. Members on both sides, but I would add one more point, that war is generally deemed to be probably temporary and peace is generally considered likely on balance to last rather longer than war; and if it were thought that a war was going to last to the end of the centuries people might hesitate to give up some of these freedoms even in war. The essential point about war is that it is a temporary interruption of civilisation.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. C. Poole: While the hon. and learned Gentleman is near the point, he is not actually on the point. Is not the fundamental issue during the war and at the present time the whole question of the survival of the nation?

Mr. Strauss: I would say two things in answer. I would answer first of all that I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Quintin Hogg) that that is not the sole point. I agree with him that, if the only chance of our survival were permanent slavery, I would not be prepared to buy survival at that price. But having said that, let me go on to assure him that I agree with those hon. Members on this side of the Committee, and, I think, a great number of those on the other side of the Committee, including if I am not mistaken the hon. Member for North Battersea, who believe that it is perfectly futile to think that this power of direction will promote any of the ends the Government have in view.

Mr. Douglas Jay: At this stage perhaps I had better speak for myself. I can assure the hon. and learned Member that I would not argue that times are so abnormal as to justify direction of labour in present conditions. I am opposed to direction of labour. May I add that I am in favour in the present emergency, for reasons I have already given, of the Control of Engagement


Order, which is quite a different proposition. For these reasons I do not propose to vote against this Amendment tonight.

Mr. Strauss: I am obliged to the hon. Member for His intervention. Perhaps I must be careful not to quote him too much, but he will realise I have not quoted him in any way that was derogatory to him. I have said, and I will repeat, that I will watch with interest how he votes tonight. Here is one other quotation in which the Committee may be interested, if they have not seen it already, because it is a quotation that is so prophetic. It was made 12 years ago. I will read it:
For when men return to an old institution which they have discarded and the proper name for which has grown odious (as we are returning to the enslavement of labour), they are particularly anxious to avoid that name, and spend much of their energy in discovering some new way of getting the old thing under a new title—thus no one will call compulsory labour slavery, nor will even the word 'compulsory' or 'compulsion' appear on the surface. There will be some other term and I for one shall follow with curiosity and delight the evolution of that term.

Mr. W. J. Brown: That was not written 12 years ago, but in 1925 by Belloc.

Mr. Strauss: I must confess I knew it was 1925 and that was the year I was going to give. For the moment I thought 1925 was 12 years ago. I realise how very wide of the mark I was. I apologise for my mistake. That was written by Hilaire Belloc in "The Cruise of the Nona" in 1925.

Mr. Mitchison: May I remind the hon. and learned Member that there has been a war since then?

Mr. Strauss: Unlike the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), I had not forgotten that fact. Our first objection to this regulation—and to anybody who shares these views that objection is decisive—is that this regulation and its continuance now are morally wrong. On that ground, if there were no others, we should with perfect confidence go into the Lobby in support of this Amendment. But let me pass to the other branch of the argument. Not only is it morally wrong but it is, as I said before in dealing with one of the orders made under this regulation, economically futile. I do not believe that it would be

possible to find any economist in this country who would say that this is the way to produce the results desired. They would say that one of the causes of the thing we wish to correct is the ridiculous policy of inflation which the Government, Major Milner, have hitherto pursued—

The Chairman: The Chairman rose—

Hon. Members: Order.

The Chairman: The hon. and learned Gentleman should resume his seat when I rise. I must point out that the question of inflation has nothing to do with this Debate.

Mr. W. J. Brown: On that same point of Order, Major Milner, while inflation is not the subject of the Debate tonight, is it not in Order for an hon. Member to say that one of the reasons for the introduction of this Measure is the failure to do something in some other connection which should have been done?

The Chairman: That is another matter and may or may not be the case. We should have to wait and hear what the argument was.

Mr. Strauss: I would say at once that if I did not yield instantly it was not through any disrespect for the Chair, but because, guessing your point, Major Milner, I was going to say that I would not add another sentence on that subject. I only alluded to it in a way in which it had already been alluded to, once from this side of the Committee and once from the other side. I can assure you that I did not intend any disrespect for the Chair.
Let hon. Members opposite study the speeches of their own Front Bench, the speeches of trade unionists, and of Members of all parties when they were dealing with this question before it was before us in the legislative form of absolute industrial conscription, which is what we have now got under this regulation and the orders made thereunder. They will find that all have said that that industrial conscription was not only bad, but the wrong way of achieving the desired result. It is not economically effective. I agree entirely with an interruption made by the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Byers), who pointed out, in interrupting the National Socialist speech of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne,


who thought that the Government were taking no risk by this regulation and these orders, that the Government are taking the most enormous risk by this regulation and these orders. They are doing away with the greatest motive force of British people, namely, the love of freedom and the inspiration that they can derive from a free society which incorporates the values of their civilisation. They are doing away with that, and substituting the most fantastically incompetent machinery in its place.
I am really surprised that the Minister of Labour seems unable to appreciate the point that a power which he himself only values as a reserve power will actually cause him more trouble by its presence than he would feel if it were absent. He has himself said that advice will often succeed, yet he wants this power in the background. It is the power in the background that deprives our people of freedom, and is therefore futile. I make this prophecy. This plan, on which the Government are now embarking, this plan of slavery—because I am giving it its true title; however benevolent it may be, it is slavery—this plan of slavery will fail. Unfortunately, we have experience of the fact that the more incompetent the Government become, the more conceited they become. When the plan fails, instead of the Government saying, "We were on the wrong lines, we will try freedom," they will say, "This has failed because some elements of freedom were still left." That is the position in which we now find ourselves. The Government by defending this regulation are claiming the right, without limit of time, to do away with the essential freedoms of a free society. I ask hon. Members in all quarters of the Committee to support the Amendment.

Mr. W. J. Brown: Earlier, the Minister of Labour expressed the view that the discussion on the regulation had not been an unbiased discussion. My contribution to this Debate will also not be unbiased. I have an obstinate bias in favour of freedom, and an obstinate bias against slavery. And for those reasons I shall vote against this Measure tonight. I think the first thing the Minister of Labour ought to do—and I say this with affection, as an old colleague of his—is to make up his mind what is the case of the Government for

this Measure. We have had two mutually contradictory, two self-destructive cases, made by the Minister in the course of a single speech. He stood on two legs—

Dr. Morgan: Why not?

Mr. Brown: In the case of the Minister, that is a mark of his humanity, which does not apply to some of his colleagues behind him. One case the Minister made tonight was that this really was not direction. "For," says he, "when the man comes to the exchange, we shall offer him this job, and if he does not like it, we will offer him something else. If he does not like that, we will offer him a third, and, perhaps, a fourth choice of finding a job which is congenial to him. And because we do that, and do not direct him, unless he rejects the particular appointments offered, we are not in fact directing labour." That is rather like a highwayman on the Great North Road presenting a gun at the traveller, and saying, "Deliver, or I fire," receiving the jewellery, and subsequently pleading in a court of law that he had not exercised compulsion—[Laughte.]—

Dr. Morgan: What wonderful humour is being displayed at such a simple and unsophisticated remark.

Mr. Brown: I always feel about the interruptions of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan) that it is an awful pity they are not kept until the end of the speech of the hon. Member whom he interrupts and made the subject of his own speech later, because then we could go out, and would not have to listen to them—

Dr. Morgan: rose—

Hon. Members: Order.

Dr. Morgan: And that is what I now propose to do.

Mr. Brown: I am always willing to give way—

Mr. Attewell: The hon. Member is not doing so.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Brown: I was trying to say that I am always willing to give way on a serious and controversial issue, but one ought not to be expected invariably to give way to silly, barnyard noises of which we get an unfair proportion sometimes in this Committee.
I argue that the element of compulsion lies in the power which the Minister takes under this Measure and which he can, and in certain cases will, exercise. If not, there is no point at all in the direction of labour. When he tries to justify this Measure on the ground that it is not really direction, he is rather like the housemaid who apologised for the inappropriate baby on the ground that, after all, it was only a little one. We cannot tolerate, we ought not to tolerate, that line of argument from the Minister.
What is his other line? His other line is that this is direction of labour, and that we must have it in order to overcome the economic crisis in this country. I suspect that that is his real case tonight. The rest was eyewash. The real case is, "We need this "—says he—" to overcome the economic crisis in this country." He justifies it by referring to all kinds of compulsion—indirect compulsions which have been exercised on the poor in the past. I agree with a great deal of what he said. Like him, I was the subject of economic compulsion, the negative direction of poverty, at an early age. I sympathise with his own experiences which he recited to the Committee. But, surely, the effect of these experiences upon us in the past—and I do not deny their gravity, their seriousness, and some of their villainous results—the effect ought not to be to make us say, "I went through that, and now you have to go through it." The effect of those experiences ought to be to make us say, "I suffered so much from that experience, that if it is humanly possible I will never apply that experience to anybody else, or be an instrument to that end."

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): That is what we are saying.

Mr. Brown: I am not sure who is the spokesman for the Government tonight, but if it is the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, I am very willing to give way, because he is always a joy to me.

Mr. Hogg: He is sitting pretty.

Mr. Brown: It is said that he is sitting pretty. I will only say that he is sitting.
In regard to the argument that direction can be justified in time of peace because it

has already been done in time of war, surely, this argues a complete inability to distinguish between two utterly different things. One surrenders liberty in time of war in order that one may get it back at the end of war. But is the corollary to be that we should surrender liberty in time of peace to get it back at the end of peace? That would appear to be the corollary. I say that any man who cannot distinguish between a temporary and strictly limited surrender of freedom in time of war, with the enemy at the gate, and this kind of proposal for the indefinite conscription of labour in peace-time—'because there is no time limit attached to it—a Minister who cannot distinguish between those two things is, in my opinion, blind where he ought to be able to see, if I may put it as charitably as possible.
I agree with my hon. Friend behind me that if permanent or temporary slavery is the price of survival at the present time, we ought not to buy survival at that price. But nobody has demonstrated to us yet that either permanent or temporary slavery is the price of survival at the present time. I would go so far as to say that we have this Bill before us today because of the failure of the Government to do, in other directions, perfectly possible things. We are going to shove the individual around on the circumference because we have not had enough courage to deal with the problem at the centre. We have been told that this is a 10 per cent. crisis, a crisis in which an increase in production all round of 10 per cent. would make the difference between economic solvency and economic bankruptcy. I cannot understand how, of all Governments, a Labour Government, representing a movement which has been built up by propaganda—and after all the essence of propaganda is to take complicated truths and make them understandable by simple people—can have so completely failed to get the message of the crisis across to the country as to make it necessary to talk about the kind of Bill we have before us now.
For two years we were lulled, and even in the last troubled six months we have not been roused. We have had during that period one speech from a Minister who had any capacity at all to convey to the country the seriousness of the crisis. The Government failed to wake up the


people; therefore they fall back on this. They failed to work out an agreed wages policy, a policy of attraction, and, therefore, they fall back on this: This Bill is the measure of the Government's failure to do the obvious and necessary thing. It is the measure of the Government's departure from their own earlier proclamations, for it was Ministers who declared that the real solution lay in the policy of attraction, and not in the policy of compulsion. This is a Bill which marks the measure of the Government's default. It is utterly alien to the history and tradition of the trades union movement in Britain. I remember earlier Debates in this House, and that on one occasion I once said, and people got very angry with me at the time for saying it, that there might come a time in England when the Trades Union Congress, with very little alteration, might become a passable imitation of the Nazi Labour Front without anybody noticing much difference. We are getting that now. We are getting a complete failure on the part of the trades union movement to keep its mind clear on the objective of liberty.

The Chairman: The hon. Member is going far outside the scope of the Amendment.

Mr. Brown: I am most anxious not to go outside your Ruling, Major Milner, but I am trying to argue that we have only got this Bill at all because the Government on the one hand, and the Trades Union Congress on the other, have not been able to address themselves to that problem of a wages policy.

The Chairman: That argument is really not permissible on the Amendment which is before the Committee, which deals with a certain regulation.

Mr. Brown: I immediately accept your Ruling, Major Milner, and I pass from that point.
Objection has been taken to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) inciting men to reject this order. The Minister of Labour took a very unkindly view of those particular remarks of the hon. Member for Oxford. I am not going to incite anybody, because what we have to do is to obey the law as it is, and thereafter change the Government if we do not think the law good.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is misinterpreting what I said. I do not intend to run away from what I said but I should like to make it clear that I remarked that I hoped people with conscientious objections to this Measure will give effect to them by refusing to obey it, but I was not seeking to incite people to disobey the law in any general sense. [Interruption.] I gave an exact statement of what I meant and I am not going to run away from it.

Mr. Brown: I am not going to press that further. One Member may call it incitement, and another may call it a precise indication of his feelings about a particular matter. I think we have got to obey the law while it is there, and if we do not like the law the thing to do is to change the Government. But what I am astonished at is that the Government should so rapidly want to change themselves. Because, believe me, this Measure will do them more harm amongst the workmen of the country than anything the Government has done so far. If it is wrong to incite men to break the law, before we pass the law we ought to ask ourselves what is our capacity to apply it. The Government cannot apply this law. If there is any serious resistance this thing will crack in their hands.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: As would any other law.

Mr. Brown: No. There are certain features about this particular law, and our situation, which make it extremely friable indeed. The prison population is twice what it was before the war. There are three prisoners in a cell. And if prison sentences are passed under this law the Government will have nowhere to put the prisoners unless they begin immediately to create concentration camps for them. The Government ought not to pass a law unless there is a reasonable expectation that they are carrying the country with them and a reasonable expectation that the law itself can be enforced. The Government are not carrying the country with them. They have not consulted the country about it. They are not carrying the party with them, because the last expression of opinion at the Labour Party Conference was hostile to direction of labour. I cannot be persuaded that some of my old trade union colleagues want to touch direction of labour with a barge pole.
The Government have no mandate for this. There is no reason to suppose they are interpreting the mind of the people, and there is no reason to suppose that they can enforce this law if they pass it. In all those circumstances the obvious thing is not to go ahead with this folly, but to withdraw this Measure, and then do the job which Governments were made to do. The way to take the people out of the crisis is to lead them: Where we get a condition of permanent slavery, it is because of this kind of thing. The Government cannot stop here. If this Bill passes, in three or four years, or indeed in a less period, we shall find exactly the same arguments adduced for further compulsion as are now adduced for the compulsion of spivs, drones, eels and what not. Slavery grows by what it feeds on, and the Government cannot embark upon this path in peacetime without carrying it to its logical conclusion.
It may seem paradoxical that it should be a Labour Government which brings in this Measure. I remember some years ago in the Lobby meeting Ben Tillett, once a Member of this House., I found Ben" Tillett, at the age of 80 or thereabouts, in a state of very great distress. He had come down to the House with the intention of going up into the Gallery and offering his protest, as a lifelong trade union leader, against the application of compulsion in industry even in time of war. He was dissuaded from doing so by some of his friends in the House, but the old man was heartbroken that the trade union movement with which he had been associated all his life could contemplate industrial compulsion, which was anathema to trade unionists of my youth in any connection. He was heartbroken that a Coalition Government should do that in time of war. I am sure that if he could have seen a Labour Government imposing industrial conscription in time of peace, he would have had apoplexy straight away. This Order is absolutely alien to our spirit as a people, and alien to the traditions of the trade union movement. It has not been demonstrated to be necessary, and it has been shown that it cannot be applied if there is any serious resistance to it. Therefore, I ask the Government, in all those circumstances, to think again.

10 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am very sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour, whose sincerity I have never questioned, should have marred his own speech by opening it with an imputation against the sincerity both of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) and of other hon. Members on this side of the Committee.

Mr. Isaacs: In case I was misunderstood—I hope I was not—I would point out that I did not charge the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby with insincerity. What I meant to convey was that he did not feel the temper which he expressed. I did not question his sincerity, and I said so immediately afterwards.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not quite follow the distinction which the right hon. Gentleman seems to make between not feeling the temper which one is expressing as a Member of the House of Commons when addressing the House and insincerity, but, if the right hon. Gentleman thinks that there is a distinction there, he is perfectly entitled to it. What I want to say to the right hon. Gentleman is that I hope it has become clear by now that there are many hon. Members in this Committee, not only on this side, who do feel passionately strongly about this matter. The right hon. Gentleman may think us misguided, but I maintain that we are entitled to insist that he accepts from us that we mean every word we say upon this matter. We feel that we are discussing a matter of the very greatest importance. The right hon. Gentleman sought to buttress his suggestion that we were not feeling the temper we expressed by saying that we had never before taken any action in this Chamber upon this matter.
In the very brief time since the right hon. Gentleman said that, researches have been made, and I would remind him that on 9th October, 1946, the hon. Baronet the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) moved, and, it so happened, I seconded, a Motion to annul the Control of Engagement Order so far as it applied to the coalmines. I would further remind the right hon. Gentleman that on 28th February, 1946, the same hon. Baronet moved a Motion to annul an Order in Council, which Order in


Council actually continued in force the same Defence Regulation as the Committee is debating tonight. Both those matters were carried to a Division, and, in the face of that evidence, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw his suggestion that this matter has not been contested before by hon. Members on this side of the Committee.

Mr. Isaacs: Certainly. I said that, from my recollection, I thought that to be the case. My recollection has now been checked, and I accept the hon. Gentleman's evidence and withdraw the accusation.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for that. The right hon. Gentleman, in defence of this regulation, went on to use the argument which is used again and again by his supporters in the country. He said that there had always been direction of a sort in this country, only it had been direction by economic pressure, and not by the forces of the law. I would put this to him. First of all, if that be true—and, of course, there is a great deal of truth in it—that is no reason for adding a second evil to an already existing one. It is like saying, "I have committed one offence, let me commit another." Further, there is a real difference between direction by economic pressure and direction by the forces of the law. It is that direction by economic pressure means, as I understand it, that a man feels himself compelled to do the job the earnings of which will best enable him to support his family and himself. That is all that it means. The effect of the direction under this regulation is to say that in some cases a man may be compelled to take the job which does not provide him with the best chance and the best method of supporting himself and his family. It may well be that he will be directed from a well-paid job to a less well-paid job. Therefore, this form of direction operates, in many cases, in exactly the opposite direction to the economic pressure to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.
The right hon. Gentleman gave as an example of this former economic pressure the case of a person being compelled to leave his home, go elsewhere and in another town take a job carrying 15s. a week less pay than his previous one. That is precisely what may well

happen under this regulation. If it was wrong, as the right hon. Gentleman so plainly thought it was wrong, for the play of economic forces to do that to a man accidentally, is it not very much worse for a Minister of the Crown deliberately, and with the force of the law behind him, to do that to a man? If the right hon. Gentleman does not regard that as wrong, I do not understand the force of the argument which he sought to support by that example.
On the other hand, if it is wrong, as I am sure hon. Members on both sides believe it is, is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman is tonight trying to secure from the House of Commons authority to do just that sort of thing? Quite obviously he will not want the power in order to get a man to go to a better paid job within reach of his home. The man will go there anyhow. The only purpose of taking this power of direction is either to send the man away from his
home or to send him to a job less attractive, less well paid and with less prospects than the one in which he has been working previously. The right hon. Gentleman really must face that fact. I say to him in all sincerity that if there were criticisms to be made of the old system, all that he is doing is to repeat many of the bad features of the old system and to support those bad features with all the authority of the State.
The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), who I am glad to see has rejoined us after quite a substantial interval, tried to argue that the effect of the present discussion was to do what I think in his heart he recognises to be right, and that is to provide that if compulsory direction of labour is to be fastened upon this country, it should be so fastened by the machinery of a Parliamentary Bill. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne knows perfectly well that that is not being done. He knows that there is not at the moment one word in this Bill about Regulation 58A or direction of labour. He knows that it is only because hon. Members on this side of the Committee have sought to include it in the Bill for the purpose of abolishing it, that this matter comes before the Committee at all. What has happened is that the Government have seen fit on previous occasions to keep alive the wartime power to direct labour. They allowed that


power to slumber for two years, and they have now resurrected it.
If this thing is to be done at all, surely it is quite wrong and an abuse of every wartime regulation to dig that rusty weapon out of the legislative armoury and use it to bring about what amounts to a social revolution in this country. If this were to be done, it should be done by a Bill, as military conscription was done, and I hope the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne is not now going even to pretend that it is being done in that way.
I feel that this is a tremendously big issue, that it is perhaps the biggest issue Parliament has had to discuss. It is right that we should discuss it, and that the immense change which is being effected in this country should be made blindingly clear to the people of this country. The Government have, as an hon. Friend of mine has already said, not a scrap of a mandate for this. The hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) today frankly admitted that that was so. I do not believe that there is one Member of this House of Commons on the benches opposite who went before the electors of "his constituency at the last Election and said, "Return a Labour Government and have direction of labour in a little over two years." I believe that if hon. Members opposite had said that there would have been very few of them here today. I do ask them whether they feel themselves entitled now, completely without mandate, without having said a word to their electors, to fasten upon those electors the shackles of what my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) so rightly called a "form of slavery." I am not myself very enamoured of the doctrine of the mandate; but, surely, if that doctrine has any force it must have force in connection with a major Measure of this kind, involving changes in the structure of society.
If the Government feel that there is public support for this and that it is necessary, I say to them: Let them tender the necessary advice to His Majesty, and have this issue discussed by the country at a General Election, and abide by the verdict. I know perfectly well that hon. Members opposite dare not do that. I know that they know the inevitable consequence to them and their political fortunes if they dared to do that;

and they know that in their hearts. Therefore, I say that they have no mandate for this; that they have not one scrap of authority for it; and that they are doing it now without having any support in the country behind them.

Mr. S. Silverman: I ask the hon. Gentleman why, since the argument he has just used applies with equal force in the matter of military conscription, he did not vote against that Act.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) asks me a question which tempts me, no doubt, to the verge of Order. But may I say this? I gave no pledge at the General Election against military conscription, and I voted for it—

Mr. Shurmer: We did not give a pledge against it, either.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Member says he gave no pledge against it. Would he say that he would be here today if he had stood on the platforms of his constituency and said he would see to it that direction of labour was brought into this country? He knows perfectly well he would not. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne cannot get away with that. He knows perfectly well, so far as hon. Members on this side of the House are concerned on military conscription, that on this issue our consciences and our pledges are clean. I wish I could say the same for his.

Mr. Silverman: The hon. Member is not doing himself justice. Nobody ever said that the party opposite was pledged against military conscription. What the hon. Member has been saying is that this Government had no right to introduce industrial conscription without a mandate. I am asking why, therefore, he did not use the same argument on the occasion when we introduced military conscription.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have some doubt as to the right of this Government to introduce military conscription. I voted for it because, as a Member of the House of Commons, it is my duty to vote for a Measure that I think right, whether or not I think that the Government that introduces it has any moral right to do so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Are hon. Members opposite suggesting that it is the duty of an hon. Member to vote against


a Measure which he thinks right simply because he does not think that the people who are introducing it have any right to do so? [Interruption.] Is that the constitutional doctrine which those interruptions indicate? If so, it is one of the more inspiring novelties of Socialist thought. It is no part of my duty to defend the action of the Government on this or any other issue, because I am concerned only to defend my own actions. I voted for military conscription because I thought it was necessary, and I hope no other hon. Member voted for or against it for any other reason than that they thought it necessary or unnecessary.
10.15 p.m.
As the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne is taking this up with me, let me say that I assume from his attitude on a previous occasion that he will be with us in the Lobby tonight. On 22nd May he said:
There can be no distinction between compelling people to go into the Army because national defence is necessary, and because the Army is a distasteful occupation, and compelling people to go into the mines, because coal is necessary, and mining is a distasteful occupation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd May, 1947; Vol. 437, c. 2557.]
That was the hon. Member's reason for opposing compulsory military service. If he is logical, and if he opposed compulsory military service because it was indistinguishable, in his mind, from compulsory industrial service, surely the logical course is for the hon. Member to vote for this Amendment tonight?

Mr. S. Silverman: Surely not, because if I did the result would be the illogical situation against which I protested? I said that if, in peacetime, the principle of military conscription was admitted for a remote war contingency, it was hopelessly illogical to pretend that it could be resisted when needed for the immediate circumstances of emergency. The House, having decided to impose that obligation, cannot now reverse that decision.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Member was as clear and as lucid on that occasion as he has been tonight. His argument amounted to this. As he saw it, one of the evils of military conscription was that industrial conscription would follow. That is what he prophesised. Tonight, he is saying to this Committee that because he prophesied that that must be so, he will now cast his vote to ensure

that it is so—a feat of intellectual gymnastics above even the hon. Member's usually high standard. The issue is really far too big, even for the question of the consistency or inconsistency of individual hon. Members.
My hon. Friends have said with great force that, not only is this wrong but it will not work. Let hon. Members opposite consider this. Assume that the Minister of Labour uses his powers to the full. Assume that he sweeps into the industrial net the barrow boys, the spivs and all the other flora and fauna and excrescences of social life. Is there any hon. Member who thinks those people would be of the slightest use in industry? Is there any employer who would wish to have such people in his factory? Is there any worker who would wish to work alongside them? Is there any person who seriously thinks that they would assist in our industrial recovery? Is it really suggested that people who have avoided serious work all their lives will be turned, by the magic wand of the Minister of Labour, into efficient industrial producers? If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that, he is living in a world of fantasy. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that compulsory powers will turn slackers into hard workers, he is far simpler than I had taken him for.
It will not work. It will help nothing but the statistics of the Ministry of Labour. It will enable the Minister to say that he has increased the labour force by so many hundreds of thousands, but it will not increase industrial output or industrial efficiency in the slightest degree. Let us get it quite clear: the only point which matters is not the prestige of the Minister or his Department, but the industrial output of this country. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Derby said, and said truly, that at this moment we stand at the parting of the ways. I believe that to be profoundly true. I believe that tonight will be marked by future historians of this country as being the moment at which this country decided whether it wanted to be a free society, with all the faults, all the weaknesses and all the limitations of a free society—but still a free society—or whether it wanted to be a society in which the State directed all, and in which the individual had remarkably little place. We have to decide—and this regulation goes far to decide it—whether we want a


society in which people are still entitled to work as they think right, in which eccentrics, cranks and geniuses have a chance to develop themselves, and to work in their own way as best they can, and to make their own way in life as best they can with the gifts God has given them. This kind of society, with all its faults and limitations, still seems in the eyes of Western Europe to be the only civilisation worth having. That is why we shall fight "this order of the Government at every opportunity we have. We shall fight this issue in the constituencies at every opportunity. As we believe in freedom, and as we believe in English ideas of liberty, I prophesy before this Committee that on this issue, we shall win and win soon.

Mr. S. O. Davies: I have listened to most of this Debate, and I confess at the outset that I dislike and hate this regulation with all the power and feeling I have. I know very well that it is left to me as a Member to go into either Division Lobby, or to refrain from voting. Having heard the speeches to which I have beep compelled to listen from hon. Members opposite, I have found it absolutely impossible to stick to my seat here. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not come over here?"] I shall be over there in a minute, but possibly in a manner which hon. Members may not like. I speak so infrequently in this House that perhaps I may introduce myself to the Opposition. I am privileged to represent, to the best of my ability, the constituency known as Merthyr Tydfil.

Mr. Shurmer: Tell us about the hungry bellies.

Mr. Davies: In addition, I happen to be a Welshman, and I have no reason to be other than pleased and proud of being a member of that gallant and very interesting little nation. This Debate, on compelling labour possibly to seek work away from home, has gone on for some time. It might interest the Opposition to know that when their party formed a Government, they drove 33,000 people out of my constituency by force during the inter-war years.

Mr. Byers: Why is the hon. Member trying to do it now?

Mr. Davies: I will answer that in a minute. I must be entitled to answer a doubtful Liberal in my own way.

Mr. Byers: Mr. Byers rose—

Mr. Davies: I shall not give way at this time of the evening.

Colonel Dower: On a point of Order. Is it in Order for an hon. Member to impute political dishonesty to a Member without giving him a chance to reply?

Mr. Davies: I did not impute, and I had not the remotest intention of imputing any kind of dishonesty to anyone, but I am entitled to know, not only in this extremely important matter, but in other important matters, where my Liberal friends stand. If I am left to draw my own conclusions, I must not be blamed. I was saying that in my constituency we lost 23,000 people in the inter-war years. I can assure the Committee that the overwhelming majority of that number were young men and women who did not desire to leave. They were compelled to do so despite the strongest of all sentiments. What they wished to do was to stay at home and enjoy contacts and associations with people among whom they had their roots. My little country lost half a million of its population in those days, but I never heard one protest from the Government of the day—a Tory Government. I am certain that I heard no objection from the purist hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown), who has now left the Committee.
We are dealing with compulsion tonight, and I want to cut through the mass of hypocrisy which we have heard from the other side of the Committee. In doing so, the Committee will appreciate that, much as I hate this regulation, the Opposition, in their day, applied compulsion which was infinitely more deadly and more hateful than anything that I and my people have ever experienced in South Wales. They ruined our industries; they disrupted our people's homes. There is so much I could say. I shall continue to protest for a long time against the fiendish, infernal machines which Tory Governments of the past have created—

The Chairman: : I thought the hon. Member was leading up to the Amendment before the Committee.

Mr. Davies: I do not think that any Member of the Committee has fallen foul of the Chair less than 1, Major Milner. I have no wish to do so, but I must say I have heard for some hours this evening the most, I will not say intolerable, but generous liberties being taken with the matter before us. I hope that will not be misconstrued. I support the Chair every time, but it errs on the side of generosity and leniency.
I cannot vote for the continuing of this power of compulsion, but I had to make my voice heard because otherwise my constituents would never understand why I had not done so. Heaven knows my people and the whole country have been subjected to compulsion in a far more insidious, fiendish, brutal way than ever proposed here this evening and I have got up, if I may summarise what I have said, to call the cheap bluff of those who protest so strongly against this regulation.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: May I remind the Committee of what the Amendment proposes to do? It proposes to leave out from the operation of this Bill Regulation 58A. The effect is to put an end to Regulation 58A. That is not the same thing as the Control of Engagement Order. Regulation 58A is very different. Let me examine for a moment the Government's argument. They have not justified the direction of labour at all, except by saying it might be necessary and would be resorted to only if everything else failed. They will try offering men employment a first, second, third and fourth time before they direct them. That is their argument, and we have objected to it. I spoke against it on the Control of Engagement Order and voted against it.
But this is not the Control of Engagement Order. It is Regulation 58A, passed in time of war, which empowers the Minister to order a man to go wherever he wishes, whenever he wishes, to work under conditions and at whatever wage the Minister may determine. I agree with every word that has been said on the score of slavery. Whatever can be said about slavery with regard to the Control of Engagement Order can be said in peacetime about 58A. The hon. member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman)

championed this because he said there is an emergency today, but I do not grant him his argument. I agree with the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). If you want to keep any power at all, merely to enable the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne to do what he wants to do, is it not time that 58A was wiped from the Statute Book and proper directions, in accordance with the opinions of those who believe in direction, put on the Statute Book? That is not the attempt here. The attempt here is to revive and keep alive a wartime regulation necessary for the safety of the Realm, with an absolute power in peacetime to the Minister—not even guarded, not even limited. Why does not the right hon. Gentleman come to the House and proceed by means of a Bill, as the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames said, and not merely revive an absolute power of wartime? Whatever our views may be about the present emergency, if we reject this Amendment we shall be voting that an absolute power be given to the Minister. Can anyone deny that? Can the Minister deny it? That is the issue on this Amendment; it is not the limited issue of control—the issue of limited slavery. This is absolute slavery. No one denies that even in wartime this is slavery. That is what war means—it means slavery for the subject. People were prepared to accept it then to throw off Hitler's yoke. No one doubts that it was slavery upon each one of us.
It is proposed to maintain this because of what is said to be an emergency. Let us accept that for a moment, and bring that situation face to face with actual conditions. Can hon. Members go to the country, can they face any of their electors and say they have thought out this matter and that they mean to give, in peacetime, absolute power to the Minister to send a man where he likes when he likes, and for whatever wages he likes, and subject the man to imprisonment if he does not go? That is going a good deal further than any defence of the Control of Engagement Order. That is what you are defending here. I know that a large number of hon. Members on the benches opposite have spent their days in the battle for freedom, for liberating their fellows. Where are they now? It is no good saying to me, "Where have you been all the time?" They are not defending


freedom here. They are defending a system of absolute slavery in this Measure. I want to make it as clear as I can that anyone voting for this Measure is not voting for the Control of Engagement Order, but for something far more sweeping and deadly.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I think we all listened with the greatest interest to everything which the Minister of Labour had to say in support of the retention of this highly obnoxious Defence Regulation. I must say that I thought his speech was singularly confused. The only thing which was clear about it was that he did not endorse the views of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), the only hon. Member in this Committee who has risen to support the right hon. Gentleman in contending that this Defence Regulation should remain in force. When I refer to his confusion, may I remind the Committee that almost in the same breath he said two contradictory things. First, he said that the Government would not be able to carry on the manning of industries without this Defence Regulation, and secondly, that he felt that people were saying, "Tell us a job, and we will go and do it." If that be the case, if he feels that people are coming forward and saying, "Tell us a job and we will go and do it," that really destroys his case for the retention of this Defence Regulation.
If he relies on the other argument, what does it mean? That this Government
cannot carry on the government of the country without powers of direction, or maintain the economy of the country without such powers; without having in the community a limited section of slaves. I will prophesy that if they cannot carry on without these powers, they certainly will not be able to carry on with them. No one has disputed that this regulation gives to the Government very vast and extensive powers to direct any person, at any time, to any employment, and to continue in that employment for an indefinite period on terms and conditions which may be prescribed by a National Service officer.
It has been pointed out already in this Debate that the Government have no mandate for this; and indeed, when the Home Secretary moved the Second

Reading of the Supplies and Services Bill, under which this regulation has been continued up to now, he did not say one word about that Bill being intended to carry on this Defence Regulation to provide for the direction of labour. He said quite shortly that that Bill was necessary to continue Defence Regulations to continue the rationing of clothing, foodstuffs, textiles, the control of building labour and materials, and to maintain agricultural production at the highest level. He said that this could be done only by the continued use of about a dozen Defence Regulations which came under the Bill. We have seen that in potato rationing. The fourth item which the Home Secretary mentioned was the control of prices to avoid inflation.
Not one word was said by the Home
Secretary about retention of Defence Regulations for giving powers of
direction. He rather indicated that the Measure would not be used for that purpose. This is the first opportunity since this Government came into power that we have had an opportunity to debate the issue of the direction of labour. We had a Debate about a week ago on the Control of Engagement Order. We might have a Debate in the future on the registration of persons under Orders made under this Defence Regulation, but this is the first time we have had the opportunity of discussing the real, vital issue of whether this country goes down the path of freedom in the future, or whether this restriction upon personal liberty should be imposed by this Socialist Government. The right hon. Gentleman has made no very clear statement as to the extent to which the powers will be used. He has cast his net wide, which applies to both young and old. Anyone may be directed. The hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Jay) said that he was against direction of labour except for the control of engagements. He must be in a dilemma in this instance to know how to vote. This Defence Regulation deals primarily with direction of labour, and I hope we will see him in our Lobby voting for the Amendment. We might see some more of his colleagues with us.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe), in moving this Amendment, pointed out that there is a great deal of labour


which is misplaced in this country. The responsibility for that lies at the door of the present Government on account of their financial policy and also more directly on account of their own use of manpower. I should like to give just one instance to illustrate what I mean. In the fire services before the war there were 6,000 wholetime firemen. In April, 1947, the figure was about 22,000. Under a regulation made by this Government in the borough of Southport, which in the 25 years before the war had two major fires, the strength of the fire service has been greatly increased. Before the war there were four fulltime and eight part-time firemen. That was sufficient. Now under a Socialist administration that number has got to be raised to 40 fulltime and 16 part-time firemen. Can it really be said that this number is going to be properly employed?
10.45 p.m.
It is scandalous to ask the Committee to give this wide power to the Government. On the one side there is this terrific waste of manpower by His Majesty's Government. Indeed, I should have liked to hear some explanation from the right hon. Gentleman as to how this direction is to be accurately applied, for instance, in the case of agriculture. Are the people going to be directed to occupy hostels vacated by German prisoners of war? How is it going to operate with

regard to that? There must be some intention in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman. He has not said anything except that he hopes only to use the power as a threat. It has been said by many on this side of the Committee—and it is a view which I share—that this policy of putting chains on the British people will not lead to a solution of our troubles; it will not put us on the road to recovery. It will not produce good results, but will lead to unhappiness and distress, and a misuse of the manpower, and womanpower, and under the new improved educational facilities there will not be the advantages there should be. The right hon. Gentleman will destroy any choice of career to which the people might have looked forward. If the right hon. Gentleman and his supporters go into the Lobby tonight to retain this large power, they will be denying equality of opportunity to the people of this country and will bé imposing the slavery which goes with Socialism?

Several Hon. Members: rose.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Whiteley): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Whiteley) rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 224; Noes, 130.

Division No. 27.]
AYES.
[10.47 p.m.


Attewell, H. C.
Corvedale, Viscount
Gilzean, A.


Austin, H. Lewis
Crawley, A.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)


Awbery, S. S.
Crossman, R. H. S.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)


Baird, J.
Daggar, G
Grierson, E.


Balfour, A.
Daines, P.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)


Barton, C.
Deer, G.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)


Battley, J. R.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Delargy, H. J.
Gunter, R. J


Berry, H.
Diamond, J.
Guy, W. H.


Beswick, F.
Dobbie, W.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Dodds, N. N.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)


Bing, G. H. C.
Donovan, T.
Hardy, E. A.


Blackburn, A. R
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)


Blenkinsop, A.
Dumpleton, C. W.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)


Blyton, W. R.
Durbin, E. F. M.
Herbison, Miss M.


Boardman, H.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Hobson, C. R.


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Holman, P.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
House, G.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Hoy, J.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Ewart, R.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)


Carmichael, James
Farthing, W. J.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Champion, A. J.
Fernyhough, E.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)


Chetwynd, G. R
Field, Capt. W. J.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)


Cobb, F. A.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Cocks, F. S.
Foster, W (Wigan)
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)


Collins, V. J.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Janner, B.


Comyns, Dr. L.
Ganely, Mrs. C S.
Jay, D. P. T.


Cook, T. F.
Gibbins, J.
John, W.


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well. N. W.)
Gibson, C. W.
Jones, D T (Hartlepool)


Corlett, Dr. J.

Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)




Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Pargiter, G. A.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Keenan, W.
Parker, J.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Kenyon, C.
Parkin, B. T.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Pearson, A.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Lang, G.
Peart, T. F.
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Leonard, W.
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Levy, B. W.
Pritt, D. N.
Thurtle, Ernest


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Proctor, W. T.
Tiffany, S.


Lindgren, G. S.
Pryde, D. J.
Titterington, M. F.


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Tolley, L.


Longden, F.
Randall, H. E.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Lyne, A. W.
Ranger, J.
Turner-Samuels, M.


McAdam, W.
Rees-Williams, D. R.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


McAllister, G.
Robens, A.
Viant, S. P.


McGhee, H. G.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Walker, G. H.


Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)
Rogers, G. H. R.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


McKinlay, A. S.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Royle, C.
Warbey, W. N.


Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Sargood, R.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Sharp, Granville
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Shurmer, P.
West, D. G.


Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)


Medland, H. M.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Mellish, R. J.
Simmons, C. J.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Middleton, Mrs. L.
Skeffington, A. M.
Wigg, George


Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B


Mitchison, G. R.
Skinnard, F. W.
Wilkes, L.


Moody, A. S.
Smith, C. (Colchester)
Wilkins, W. A.


Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Morley, R.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Snow, J. W.
Williams, J. L (Kelvingrove)


Nally, W.
Sorensen, R. W.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Neal, H. (Claycross)
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.
Williamson, T.


Nichol, Mrs. M E. (Bradford, N.)
Sparks, J. A.
Willis, E.


Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Stamford, W.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Steele, T.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Woodburn, A.


Noel-Buxton, Lady
Stress, Dr. B.
Woods, G. S.


Oldfield, W. H.
Stubbs, A. E.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Orbach, M.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Paget, R. T.
Swingler, S.
Mr. Popslewell and


Palmer, A. M. F.
Symonds, A L.
Mr. Richard Adams




NOES.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Erroll, F. J.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.


Astor, Hon. M.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)


Baldwin, A. E.
Gage, C.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.


Barlow, Sir J.
Gates, Maj. E. E.
Manningham-Buller, R E.


Beamish, Maj. T V. H
George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Bennett, Sir P.
George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Marples, A. E.


Birch, Nigel
Glyn, Sir R.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Maude, J. C.


Bowen, R
Grant, Lady
Medlicott, F.


Bower, N.
Granville, E. (Eye)
Mellor, Sir J.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Gridley, Sir A.
Molson, A. H. E.


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Grimston, R. V.
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)


Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.


Butcher, H. W.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Nield, B. (Chester)


Byers, Frank
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Carson, E.
Hollis, M. C.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.


Challen, C.
Howard, Hon. A.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Osborne, C.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Jennings, R.
Pickthorn, K.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W
Ponsonby, Col, C. E.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Keeling, E. H.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Cuthbert, W. N.
Kendall, W. D.
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.


Davidson, Viscountess
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Raikes, H. V.


De la Bère, R.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Digby, S. W.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Renton, D.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Linstead, H. N.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Lipson, D. L.
Roberts, Major P. G. (Ecclesall)


Drayson, G. B.
Lloyd, Major Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Ropner, Col. L.


Drewe, C.
Low, A. R. W.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Scott, Lord W.







Spearman, A. C. M.
Turton, R. H.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)
Wadsworth, G.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Studholme, H. G.
Walker-Smith, D.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Ward, Hon. G. R.



Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
White, Sir D. (Fareham)
Commander Agnew and


Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.
White, J. B. (Canterbury)
Major Conant.


Touche, G. C.
Williams, C. (Torquay)

Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 131; Noes, 217.

Division No. 28.]
AYES.
[10.57 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E


Amory, D Heathcoat
Glyn, Sir R.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Nield, B. (Chester)


Astor, Hon. M
Grant, Lady
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Baldwin, A. E.
Granville, E. (Eye)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.


Barlow, Sir J.
Gridley, Sir A.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Grimston, R. V.
Osborne, C.


Bennett, Sir P.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Birch, Nigel
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C
Pickthorn, K.


Bowen, R.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Bower, N.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hollis, M. C.
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Howard, Hon. A.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Raikes, H. V.


Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Renton, D.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Jennings, R.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Butcher, H. W.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L W
Roberts, Major P. G. (Ecclesall)


Byers, Frank
Keeling, E. H.
Ropner, Col. L.


Carson, E.
Kendall, W D
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Challen, C.
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H
Sanderson, Sir F


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Scott, Lord W.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Spearman, A. C. M


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Linstead, H. N.
Studholme, H. G.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F C
Lipson, D. L.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E
Lloyd, Major Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Cuthbert, W. N.
Low, A. R. W.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Davidson, Viscountess
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Touche, G. C.


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Turton, R. H


De la Bère, R.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C
Wadsworth, G.


Digby, S. W.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Walker-Smith, D.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Drayson, G. B.
Manningham-Buller, R. E
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Drewe, C.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Marples, A. E.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Erroll, F. J.
Maude, J. C.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Medlicott, F.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Fyfe, Rt Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Mellor, Sir J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gage, C.
Molson, A. H. E.
Major 3onant and


Gates, Maj. E. E.
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Lieut-Colonel Thorpe


George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
Morrison, Rt. Hon W S. (Cirencester)





NOES.


Attewell, H. C.
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Delargy, H. J.


Austin, H Lewis
Carmichael, James
Diamond, J.


Awbery, S. S.
Champion, A. J
Dobbie, W.


Baird, J.
Chetwynd, G. R
Dodds, N. N.


Balfour, A.
Cobb, F. A.
Donovan, T


Barton, C.
Cocks, F. S.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)


Battley, J. R.
Collins, V. J.
Dumpleton, C. W.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Colman, Miss G. M.
Durbin, E. F. M.


Berry, H.
Comyns, Dr. L.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Beswick, F.
Cook, T. F.
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)


Bing, G. H C.
Corlett, Dr. J.
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)


Blenkinsop, A.
Corvedale, Viscount
Evans, John (Ogmore)


Blyton, W. R.
Crawley, A.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)


Boardman, H
Crossman, R. H. S.
Ewart, R.


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Daggar, G
Farthing, W. J.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Daines, P.
Fernyhough, E.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Deer, G.
Field, Capt. W. J.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E)




Foster, W. (Wigan)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Snow, J. W.


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Sorensen, R. W


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Soskice, Maj. Sir F


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Medland, H. M.
Stamford, W.


Gibbins, J.
Mellish, R. J.
Steele, T.


Gibson, C. W.
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Gilzean, A.
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.
Stross, Dr. B.


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Mitchison, G. R.
Stubbs, A. E.


Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Moody, A. S.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Grierson, E.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Swingler, S.


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Morley, R.
Symonds, A. L.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Nally, W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Gunter, R. J.
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Guy, W. H.
Nichol, Mrs. M E. (Bradford, N.)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Hardy. E A.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Noel-Buxton, Lady
Thurtle, Ernest


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Oldfield, W. H.
Tiffany, S.


Herbison, Miss M
Orbach, M.
Titterington, M. F.


Hobson, C R.
Paget, R. T.
Tolley, L.


Holman, P.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Pargiter, G. A.
Turner-Samuels, M.


House, G.
Parker, J.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Hoy, J.
Parkin, B. T.
Viant, S. P.


Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Pearson, A.
Walker, G. H.


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Peart, T. F.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Porter, G (Leeds)
Warbey, W. N.


Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Price, M. Philips
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Pritt, D. N.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Proctor, W. T.
West, D. G.


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Pryde, D. J.
White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)


Janner, B.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


John, W.
Randall, H. E.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Ranger, J.
Wigg, George


Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Rees-Williams, D. R.
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B


Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Robens, A.
Wilkes, L.


Keenan, W
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Wilkins, W. A.


Kenyon, C
Rogers, G. H. R.
Willey, F. T (Sunderland)


Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Williams, D. J (Neath)


Lang, G.
Royle, C.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Sargood, R.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Leonard, W.
Sharp, Granville
Williamson, T.


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Shurmer, P.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Lindgren, G. S.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H.


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Woodburn, A.


Longden, F.
Simmons, C. J.
Woods, G. S.


Lyne, A. W.
Skeffington, A. M.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


McAdam, W.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.



McAllister, G.
Skinnard, F. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)
Smith, C. (Colchester)
Mr. Popplewell and


McKinlay, A. S.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Mr. Richard Adams.


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)



Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. Snow: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Bicester, a copy of which Order was presented on 17th November, be approved.

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending

Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Filey, a copy of which Order was presented on 17th November, be approved.

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Grantham, a copy of which Order was presented on 17th November, be approved.

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Ross-on-Wye, a copy of which Order was presented on 17th November, be approved.

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act,


I932, to the Urban District of Shipley, a copy of which Order was presented on 17th November, be approved.

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Rural District of Wayland, a copy of which Order was presented on 17th November, be approved."—[Mr. Younger.]

Orders of the Day — WALKER ART GALLERY, LIVERPOOL

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—

[Mr. Snow.]

11.7 p.m.

Captain Bullock: I wish to raise tonight the question of the Walker Gallery, in Liverpool, which has been requisitioned by the Ministry of Food and the Ministry of Fuel and Power for the past eight years. The citizens of Merseyside have been deprived of one of the great provincial art galleries in England, Art students of the University of Liverpool have had no place for lectures on the spot, with the pictures hanging round them. Liverpool has been by-passed in all the loan exhibitions which have been touring the country. This is a serious matter for the citizens of Merseyside. In no other provincial city has this happened. Manchester has continual loan collections; Leeds has the advantage of seeing pictures from the Dulwich Gallery; the very fine exhibits of the Cooke Collection have been shown in the provinces; and Birmingham has had her exhibition of pre-Raphaelite drawings. I am no supporter of, nor can I pretend to understand, the later works of Picasso, but I think the House will agree that the works of Picasso have to be seen to be believed. Manchester has had that advantage.
It is a serious matter for the whole of Merseyside to feel that the Walker Gallery may be requisitioned for years to come. We all know that fuel and food rationing must go on for years. The inhabitants of Merseyside have already had eight years without the benefit of this gallery, and I would like to point out that the best purchases made for this gallery have been made since 1939. The citizens of London had the benefit of seeing the purchases of the Walker Art Gallery in a two-room exhibition—an

excellent exhibition—at the National Art Gallery, but the citizens of Liverpool have not been able to see their own pictures. It is essential, if you are fostering the art of students in a university, that they should have a local art gallery, and that they should be able to feel that their own works could be exhibited in their own home town. In Liverpool there is no suitable place. There is the Bluecoat School, and one or two rooms where they can have small exhibitions, but no provision adequate for a great city like Liverpool. The Art School of Liverpool is a fine and progressive institution.
I would urge the Minister to tell us what steps are being taken to find suitable accommodation to re-house the 400 or so people who are working in the Art Gallery now. I believe it could have been done directly after the war, I think opportunities have been lost. I am not going to weary the House with suggestions where the Departments might be moved. I believe there are certain proposals on foot, and I would like to have the assurance of the Minister that this is regarded as a matter of urgency. If we drift on month after month the art students will cease to be students and will become old men. Many of them have never had the opportunity of seeing anything but reproductions of pictures. They know nothing at first hand of modern painters—the Henry Moores, Graham Sutherlands, Keith Vaughans, Mintons and Colquo-houns. All the representative art of today which is being shown by the
British Council all over the world is unknown to Liverpool, for the sole reason that the Walker Art Gallery is requisitioned. Representations have
been made by some 30 civic bodies, and the full support of the British Council and the Art Council has been given. Therefore, without burdening the House any further at this late hour, I would ask for an assurance from the Minister that we in Merseyside can hope very soon to have some definite report on the derequisitioning of the Walker Art Gallery.

11.13 p.m.

Dr. Burnett Stross: May I reinforce the plea so ably made by the hon. and gallant Member opposite? Although not directly connected myself with the City of Liverpool I, like every other hon. Member interested in this subject, would like to see action by the Minister. We feel that the time has surely


now come when a great city like Liverpool should have its freedom. It is a great burden, especially in view of the damage done to the city as a result of bombing. There is very little in the way of amenities of this kind for the people of Liverpool. I remember the Minister answering a question on this subject and giving me a list of the places occupied. I do not think he has realised that his Department is occupying so much accommodation. There are 770 provincial institutions and museums; 250 of these have been closed, damaged or destroyed, or are occupied, leaving only something like 520. The time has come when the main galleries, at least, and particularly one of this description, should be open again, however difficult it may be and however burdensome to the Minister and his Department. They should get out as quickly as possible, and I urge them, therefore, to help us in this matter.

11.15 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Durbin): I should like to say, first, that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works and all the officials of my Department are wholly in sympathy with the desire expressed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Waterloo. (Captain Bullock) to vacate this very famous gallery. We are aware that it is one of the most distinguished collections of art available on exhibition in the provinces, if not the most distinguished, and we wholly accept the proposition that it is a matter of great importance that room should be found for the future exhibition of these pictures. I must, however, go on to make the point that the obligation that rests upon my Department necessarily is to find the accommodation for the various activities of the Government Departments that are determined by the general policy of the Government.
I am sure that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is aware that this gallery was originally requisitioned by the corporation; and, as he himself pointed out, it

is not being used in a frivolous or unworthy way. It houses the food office and fuel office which, as he said, have nearly 400 staff, and represent a discharge in the central part of the city of activities that are of the first importance for the citizens of Liverpool.
The only matter, therefore, is the question of alternative accommodation. There can be no dispute about the' necessity of the purposes to which this particular building is being put. It is only a question of whether there is anywhere else for these two offices to go. There, the situation is, as I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman realises, exceedingly difficult for my Department. Not only is Liverpool a heavily blitzed city where accommodation of all kinds is inadequate, but, looking at the requirements that are placed upon my Department for the period up to 1950, we find a deficit in our present accommodation. We shall need before 1950 about 200,000 more superficial square feet, that is to say, a 20 per cent. increase in the accommodation at the moment at our disposal. All the plans that we at the moment have in prospect, including concentration of existing staff, will provide only 125,000 of those 200,000 square feet, so that there is a deficit in prospect up to the end of 1950, and that constitutes the difficulty of finding alternative accommodation.
The last thing I should like to say is that it has been brought to my attention at a rather late hour today, that there is a possibility existing at the moment of an alternative and I have given instructions that negotiations for acquiring those alternative premises should be opened. I want, however, to make quite clear that that is no guarantee that those negotiations will be successful. All that I can say is that we shall do our best to make them so, and thus provide a gallery for the citizens of Liverpool.

Adjourned accordingly at Nineteen minutes past Eleven o'Clock.